Was it Hammurabi in his Code, Cicero in the de Legibus, or W.S. Gilbert in The Mikado? Actually, it doesn’t really matter who authored the phrase — whoever it was, he was right: “The punishment should [indeed] fit the crime.”
Typically, though, sentences imposed by American courts do not fit the crime because they are not idiosyncratically crafted to focus the wrongdoer — or, for that matter, the public — on the wrong committed. Whether designed for specific deterrence, general deterrence, retribution or a combination of the above, sentences usually follow a prototype: They mete out the ignominy of the conviction itself, usually coupled with jail time or probation, possibly a fine, and possibly restitution. If a defendant is jailed, serves a term of supervision or pays money, nothing except the length of the term and amount he must pay, if any, distinguishes him from offenders convicted of a totally different wrongdoing. Despite the inherent value in these punishments, there could be so much more to them.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
