Individualization of Sentences in Comparative Criminal Law: Between National Tradition and International Influences
Individualization of Sentences in Comparative Criminal Law: Between National Tradition and International Influences

Summary/Abstract: The topic of sentence individualization in comparative criminal law explores how various legal systems define, regulate, and apply the principle of proportionality in criminal sanctions, based on the specifics of the offense and the offender. The study starts from the conceptual premises of judicial individualization, examining the duality between objective legal criteria and the court's subjective assessment in determining the appropriate sentence. A comparison is made between civil law systems (e.g., France, Germany, Romania) and common law systems (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom), highlighting the differences between codified and case law-based models of individualization. The analysis considers the influence of international standards, particularly the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and documents issued by the UN and the Council of Europe on fair treatment and the proportionality of sanctions. Recent trends are identified, such as the introduction of sentencing guidelines, the role of probation boards, and the use of interdisciplinary assessments in tailoring sentences, as well as the impact of cultural, socio-legal, and political factors on judicial practice. The paper proposes a critical reflection on the necessary balance between judicial discretion, the need for consistency in criminal justice, and the imperative of respecting fundamental rights, with an emphasis on the importance of predictability and transparency in the sentencing process.

• Details
• Contents