Proportionality of punishment in criminal justice

¶ … punishment entails some standard of proportionality that calls for punishment to be impartial to the crime committed. Discussions of proportionality of punishment call for proportionality in the punishment and the punishable offense. The major objection to the principle of proportionality is the idea that no punishment is equivalent to the crime committed in an unjust society. This is because people always complain that particular sentences are too indulgent or too harsh for the crime committed. If punishment is to be measured to an offense, it severity and character must be determined through the crime for which it is inflicted. Similarly, if punishment is to be justified as to what a criminal deserves for a crime, it must be proportionate to the crime committed with considerations of the social setting. To ensure that a punishment is proportionate to the crime committed, punishment is offered in a way that is more reasonable to expect the punishment to be proportionate to the offense.

According to Hirsch (1992), the principle of proportionality is a fundamental need for fairness, and equity is sacrificed when the proportionality principle is ignored. This principle provides that sanctions be proportionate in their sternness to the seriousness of crimes. People believe that punishments given according to the gravity of crimes are fairer. In setting the proportions of sanctions to crime, Hirsch draws a significant difference amid ordinal and cardinal proportionality. The ordinal extent of a punishment demonstrates how an offense is reproachable in comparison to akin criminal actions, and compared to other offenses of a less or more serious temperament. Cardinal extent entails the affixing penalties scale as whole through fixing the total sternness levels for at least some offenses. Ordinal proportionality entails the internal punishment levels in the system of sentencing while cardinal proportionality fixes the external limits, the maxima and minima, that is allowed.

According to Hirsch (1992), the principle of proportionality avoids extremes of leniency or severity. However, this principle does not indicate how much a criminal deserves, but rather suggests giving lower and upper limits beyond which punishment would be undeserved. According to these limits, punishment administration depends on the probability of the offender committing other offenses. With respect to the ordinal and cardinal proportionality, it is hard to guarantee that a punishment is proportionate to the offense for which it is imposed. This is because two offenders can perpetrate two equally reprehensible offenses, but the two present different extents of danger; hence, the two individuals receive different punishments for committing similar crimes given that one receives a punishment on the upper limit and the other on the lower unit. Some punishments are set in relation to each other. People convicted of crimes of relative seriousness get punishments of comparable severity, but there are boundaries on sanction severity, which comprises the limits of cardinal proportionality.

The cardinal and ordinal differences offers the solutions to dilemma encountered in providing punishments to offenders. According to Hirsch (1992), there are no uniquely deserved punishments and the proportionate punishment for a particular offense is based on how the penalty scale is anchored and the manner in which other offenses are punished. Punishment is given based on the extent of the offenders' knowledge, purposefulness, carelessness or indifference to upshots. Crime punishment based on their level of gravity leads to incorrect judgment. This is because some are worse according to the spacing requirement of ordinal proportionality, but could only appear less critical. On the other hand, cardinal proportionality supports maintenance of a realistic proportion amid all levels of punitiveness and criminal conduct gravity. While ordinal extent is scaled with respect to principles of desert, putting crime in comparison with punishment with a variety of punishments already set through cardinal limits determination, cardinal extent cannot be fixed in the similar manner. Given that there are no natural proportions amid punishment and crime, the real anchoring points of the system must be fixed with respect to some decisive factor and not desert. Once the limits are provided, proportionality becomes feasible. The proportionality of cardinal limits are set with respect to deterrence needs. According to Hirsch (1992), crime-prevention effects and accessible prison facilities are pertinent in affixing punishing scale.

Given that the interpretation of prison sentences in ostensibly objective units of years or months, people acknowledge Hirsch views on the principle of proportionality. However, the principle of proportionality causes more injustices than it prevent, and its application limits intermediate sanctions, suppress their expansion, restrict their use and lead to unpreventable injustices. According to Tonry (2011), the principle of proportionality acknowledges equality in suffering for offenders; it calls for imposition of more intrusive and grave punishments than the ones needed by the prevalent political values and social norms. Tonry (2011) asserts that the principle of proportionality incorrectly objectifies punishment through allocating punishments with respect to like-situated criminals and generic punishments. This principle disregards the issue of just deserts in an unfair society since the perpetration of most common law offenses are by people from underprivileged backgrounds and these people do not deserve same penalties as people from less deprived backdrops. Tonry (2011) asserts that a punishment system that allows just punishment is general, just, less harsh and more sensitive to the issues of social injustices as opposed to adapting a punishment system that is based on desert proportionality. Like-situated criminals convicted of comparable crimes can fairly get different sentences that include financial penalties, incarceration and community-based sanctions.