Summary : Sentencing is relatively similar in the common law and continental systems in that both occur post-trial. They are dissimilar however, in that the common law system has a separate trial for sentencing purposes while the continental system has neither method nor procedure for sentencing examination.
In the common law system evidence and arguments regarding all mitigating and aggravating factors occur in the sentencing trial where the Court issues a separate decision on it. In the continental system any mitigating and aggravating factor is examined within the substantive trial and is actually considered as part of sentencing.
As sentencing is a crucial part of the criminal trial, which is linked to the rehabilitation and recidivism of the convicted person, in the continental system it lacks the necessary procedural frame and hearing detail.
This paper will therefore argue that the common law system is not only structured but also more focused in the criminological and legal aspect of sentencing.
In the common law system evidence and arguments regarding all mitigating and aggravating factors occur in the sentencing trial where the Court issues a separate decision on it. In the continental system any mitigating and aggravating factor is examined within the substantive trial and is actually considered as part of sentencing.
As sentencing is a crucial part of the criminal trial, which is linked to the rehabilitation and recidivism of the convicted person, in the continental system it lacks the necessary procedural frame and hearing detail.
This paper will therefore argue that the common law system is not only structured but also more focused in the criminological and legal aspect of sentencing.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου