Sentencing Guidelines

Although formal sentencing guideline schemes are most developed in the United States, England and Wales, a number of other countries have created sentencing bodies to undertake a variety of functions. Sentencing councils and commissions have become an important element of the contemporary punishment environment. This article compares and contrasts the functions of a number of representative sentencing councils and commissions, including the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission and the United States Sentencing Commission, among others, to examine how such bodies supplement the work of courts and government departments. Ultimately, the article presents some conclusions about the optimal characteristics for such a council.

"Public opinion surveys have long documented public criticism of ‘lenient’ sentencers. There are two principal perceptions contributing to negative attitudes: a lack of community input and the view that sentencers determine sentence according to their own views. This study embeds an experimental design within a representative survey of respondents in England and Wales (n = 1,004), supplemented by laboratory-based work (n = 230) and focus groups. Results demonstrated that the public is ill-informed about both the magistracy and the sentencing guidelines. In addition, providing information about sentencing changed public attitudes to sentencing and reduced public
punitiveness. Respondents were less critical of disposals and less punitive in their own sentence recommendations when they had been given context about the structure of sentencing."

The current restorative justice theory dwells theoretically outside the penal proceeding or penal court in order to mediate a resolution between the victim and the offender; and sometimes with each representatives and/or wider community as well, as such the modern restorative justice becomes the based theory for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) or Penal Mediation. But the traditional restorative justice did not show the outside the court proceeding such as the modern theory has.
While studying and building a recommendation for a sentencing guideline theory that can provide justice, deterrent effect, and possibly effectively achieving Criminal Justice’s goals; it is found that the traditional Restorative Justice model is the key in building a Criminal Justice System that is just, deterrent, and yet humane and merciful. Adopting the traditional way of Restorative Justice, while still taking the best part of the modern one, can be what is needed in answering the current conditions of criminal justice system in Indonesia; and possibly elsewhere, that is full of outcry of injustice, increasing crimes, heavy economic burden in enforcing the law, and repeating crimes.   
Built by adopting the same principle of God’s Law in Karmic Law, and using a framework which is derived from Indonesian Ideology; Pancasila (The 5 Values), which could be generalized into one basic value that is “equilibrium of values”, this paper describes a Restorative Justice based model in a Sentencing Reform. Thus is argued that; if adopted, will create a ripple of positive changes in Sentencing Guideline theory and/or its implementation. Restorative Justice-based Penal Code and Criminal Justice Reform that can provide the foundation toward a criminal justice system that is humane but decisive and definite; and therefore will achieve justice: a Criminal Justice Reform that is just and oriented humanely to the perpetrator, the victim, and the state (In Dutch can be called: Dader-slachtoffer-staat Straftrecht)

This paper outlines for a broad audience whether the proposal to extend the presumption against short custodial sentences will work. If it will not, what could?

CURRENTLY,  Scotland has one of the highest proportionate rates
of imprisonment in Western Europe, which the Justice Secretary
has described as “totally unacceptable”. He wants
to reduce radically the size of the prison population so that investment
can be switched from incarceration to community penalties. Presently,
extending the existing presumption against passing short custodial
sentences appears to be the main tool in the Government’s box. Yet, will
extending the Presumption work? If not, what else can be done?

The right to ‘freedom from all forms of violence from public or private sources’, enshrined in Zimbabwe’s new Constitution, could have a significant impact on efforts to end violence against women (VAW) in the country. The right is particularly relevant in the Zimbabwean context where VAW occurs in a range of settings, from the most intimate of relationships in the home to the state’s use of rape as a political weapon. One way in which the state can fulfil its duty to address VAW is through the reform of the country’s rape law. With comparative reference to the impact of the right to freedom from violence in South African law, this article discusses three areas of Zimbabwean law that present potential obstacles to achieving justice for rape survivors: the definition of the crime of rape, the abolished but tenacious cautionary rule, and the sentencing of sexual offenders.

With the advent of a postmodern society that questions the established fabric of 'culture' and attempts to deconstruct conventional gender roles, various pertinent issues have emerged. One of these issues is forcible sexual assault on a woman without her consent, recognized as the offence of rape. It is considered to be one of the most heinous offences which can be committed against the person of an individual and demands urgent attention due to the spike in the rate of its occurrences. In this article, an attempt has been made to formulate a uniform sentencing policy for rape convicts and to analyse the ramifications of allowing out-of-court compromises, between the convict and the victim, upon such a policy. It begins by tracing the extent of sexual violence in India, defining and discussing the offence of rape as provided in the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter it examines how courts have dealt with the question of allowing rape convicts to make compromises with the victims by, for instance, agreeing to marry them and the effects such compromises have on the overall sentence of the offender. It further explores the need for maintain uniformity with regard to the sentencing policy for rape cases in light of the fundamental principles of sentencing laid down by Indian as well as international courts. The article concludes with certain recommendations about the creation and implementation of such a uniform sentencing policy in rape cases.
https://nujssacj.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/developing-a-uniform-sentencing-policy-for-rape-with-special-reference-to-the-issue-of-compromise/

After 10 years in force, has the CMCHA 2007 been a success or inadequate on a practical level? This research paper investigates whether the Corporate Manslaughter Legislation adequately holds organisations to account for serious failings resulting in death and how the advice legal practitioners provide has changed in its wake (if at all). The Author has found that there has been some "improvement" on the previous regime since the 2007 Act's enactment, however, there would certainly seem to be multiple deficiencies remaining.

What is independent clause?
An independent clause can stand alone as a sentence. It contains a subject and a verb and is a complete idea.
What is Dependent clause?
A dependent clause is not a complete sentence. It must be attached to an independent clause to become complete. This is also known as a subordinate clause.

In addition to the nationwide phenomenon of mass incarceration,  there exists a sub-problem in the U.S. of overrepresentation in prisons and jails of those with severe and persistent mental illnesses (SPMI).  The disproportionate imprisonment of those with mental illnesses is one driving force of mass incarceration.  Furthermore, we have reached an era characterized by the “criminalization of mental illness.”  Driving this is another feature of the mass incarceration era, the change in the types of institutions that incarcerate those subject to social control in American society.  With the deinstitutionalization movement, and the closure of mental health institutions (largely brought about by the 1963 Community Mental Health Act),  there has been a shift towards incarcerating the mentally ill in criminal justice institutions such as prisons and jails.  This essay will consider the role mental illness should play in sentencing, and how this might reduce the disproportionate levels of prisoners with mental illness. More specifically, this paper examines the sentencing rules where the defendant has a SPMI, but has failed to successfully meet the insanity defense.

As a legal phenomenon, the plea of Allocutus is enshrined in the criminal procedures of every criminal justice system. Most countries hold it as an absolute right of the convict which the trial court cannot overlook. In Nigeria, the plea of Allocutus is not absolute but rarely goes unobserved in any criminal proceeding. Allocutus is an opportunity given to the criminal defendant convicted of a certain crime to say something in mitigation of punishment before sentence is passed on him and is not an act of kindness on the part of the court but a part of criminal processes that ought to be performed after conviction before sentencing. Most criminal defendants see this process as their last opportunity for mitigation of sentence. This paper therefore examines the legality and the effects of Allocutus in sentencing. And reveals that the plea of allocutus is often abused by the court due to personal inclinations of a particular judge involved. The paper also makes some recommendations which include the need for the court to be wary of the cardinal purpose of criminal law which is punishment and its objectives in line with sections 311 and 401 of ACJA, amongst others. The method of the research is analytical with resources garnered from texts, law reports and internet.

The juvenile justice system is the government agencies that function to investigate, supervise, adjudicate, care for, or confine youthful offenders and other children subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The juvenile justice system deals with individuals who are specifically under the age of 17, who have committed a criminal offense. Juveniles who commit crimes are considered to have been delinquent. Nearly every society since the dawn of history has looked on youth crime and juvenile offences as a serious problem, and the Nigerian society is no different. The underlining philosophy of Juvenile justice as the history of child welfare in Nigeria became very interesting and of concern for all because it touches every of human life; the government, the homes/family and the legal system. Juvenile offenders are children who committed an offense before they reached eighteen years of age, as defined by the international standards contained in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (“CRC”).

The regime of the sentencing and treatment of a juvenile  offender that has been found liable for a criminal offence forms a part of the larger framework of protection of the rights of Nigerian child under the larger Nigerian legal system. The Juvenile offender is not only protected under the constitutionally entrenched fundamental human right in chapter 4 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria, but also enjoys special legal protection and coverage under the Child’s Right Act. These provisions create a framework for the proper sentencing and treatment of the juvenile as well as regulate the institutions that would enforce the sentences. This forms the basis for this research study because a critical review of the sentencing regime is imperative for the protection of a Juvenile Offender.

This research study focuses on the review of the legal framework that regulates the sentencing of juvenile offenders to sentences in Nigeria. It aims to discover whether the provisions of the Criminal Laws and Procedures in Nigeria are in violation of international human rights law that deals with the protection of Juvenile Offenders.

In every sovereign state with a functional judicial system the court of law is regarded as an umpire, saddling with enormous sole responsibility to adjudicate disputes and administer justice. Thus, there is always a question of law and fact for the court to decide before arriving at its judgement. By the nature of its duties, court wills enormous discretionary power in deciding appropriate judgement or quantum of punishment as the case may be. This paper however, is concerned with sentencing discretion of court with regard to criminal justice system and striven to answer the questions of what is sentencing discretion and/or whether this discretionary power is completely unfettered. If not, are they any controls of sentencing discretion? Hence, the paper takes a look at the statutory control, the judicial and the control by the NJC. Again, sentencing as a necessary phenomenon in any criminal justice sector is said to be the decree of punishment which forms the final overt act of a judge-ruled process or the emblematic prime act connected to his function in the administration of criminal justice; In this work, two types of sentencing, the discretionary and the mandatory sentencing are titivated against the matrix of each other, in order to establish, if any, the scope and dimensions of judicial discretion in their applications. Also, though legislation is generally established which provide judges and magistrates with substantial amount of discretionary powers in sentencing matters, it also provides sentencing principles or objectives and factors to be taken into consideration before sentencing. These objectives are also examined in the light of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.

עניינו של המאמר בתפקיד שהוטל על ערכאת הערעור במסגרת תיקון 113 לחוק העונשין - הבניית שיקול הדעת השיפוטי בענישה.

בפרק הראשון של המאמר אנו מתארים בקצרה את הוראות החוק ואת הדרך שהוא מתווה לגזירת הדין. הפרק השני מרחיב על התכליות של התיקון לחוק ועל האופן שבו הן באו לידי ביטוי בעיצוב הוראותיו ומתמקד בתיאור ההצדקות הרעיוניות לשיטת המתחמים. הפרק השלישי מדגיש את חשיבותה של ערכאת הערעור כערכאה מנחה בגזירת הדין לפי תיקון 113. אנו עומדים בפרק זה על המצופה מערכאת הערעור, לשיטתנו, עקב חקיקת התיקון. בפרק הרביעי אנו מבקשים לעמוד על הקשיים שהתיקון מציב לפני ערכאת הערעור, העשויים להסביר את ההתנהגות של ערכאת הערעור, העשויים להסביר את של ערכאת הערעור - התנהגות שונה מהמצופה ממנה. הפרק החמישי כולל סקירה כמותית ואיכותית ל פסיקת בית המשפט העליון בשבת כערכאת ערעור על העונש בתיקים פליליים, תוך התמקדות בעיקר בערעורי מדינה. אנו טוענים בפרק זה כי אף שערכאת הערעור חיונית למימוש תכליות החוק, בית המשפט העליון, ככלל, לא עיצב מחדש את תפקידו כערכאה מנחה לפי החוק. לבסוף, כולל המאמר קריאה לערכאת הערעור להגביר את מעורבותה בפיתוח הלכות לפי תיקון 113.

Recidivism is now the guiding principle of punishment and has become the new hallmark of criminal justice reform, as reflected in the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s recidivism project. So far, the Commission has issued three reports in 2020 alone, which outline the parameters within which “safe” criminal justice reform can proceed. Yet the overly broad definition of “recidivism” and the focus on easily measurable and static risk factors, such as prior criminal record, create a feedback loop.
The Commission’s work should come with a warning label. Its recidivism studies should not be consumed on their own. Instead, they must be read in conjunction with U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services recidivism research, which includes data on the impact of programming, treatment, and services on reentry success. Yet, concerns about undercounting recidivism events drive the entire U.S. approach. Western European studies reflect different philosophies and values that explain some of the underlying reasons for the dramatically different imprisonment rates on the two sides of the Atlantic.
These recidivism studies raise also questions about the Commission’s role. Its ongoing preference for imprisonment indicates that it continues to consider itself the guardian of incarceration-driven guidelines. The studies reenforce the status quo and the Commission’s role in it. They threaten to propel us into data-driven selective incapacitation and continuously long prison terms for those with prior criminal records, all in the name of public safety.

The " substantial assistance " provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines dominate the practice of modern federal criminal law. This primary mechanism by which criminal defendants who provide valuable information to federal prosecutors are compensated for their cooperation—namely, in the form of a sentence either below the calculated Guidelines sentencing range or, more significantly, below any mandatory minimum—has created a system where defendants are incentivized to incriminate themselves and as many others as possible, all without any guarantee that their cooperation will actually result in a lesser sentence. This Note explores the operation of this provision; the consequent " cooperator's dilemma " it creates for defendants considering cooperation; and the unreliable, unfair, and unethical results it generates. It offers a novel incremental solution: an intermediate departure provision called " good faith cooperation, " whereby defendants who have attempted to cooperate but do not obtain substantial assistance motions can move to receive sentences below guidelines ranges and mandatory minimums on the basis of their attempted assistance. This provision provides a politically feasible option for legislators and commissioners that addresses multiple concerns regarding the current system without entirely upending the practice of federal criminal law as it exists.

With the advent of a postmodern society that questions the established fabric of 'culture' and attempts to deconstruct conventional gender roles, various pertinent issues have emerged. One of these issues is forcible sexual assault on a woman without her consent, recognized as the offence of rape. It is considered to be one of the most heinous offences which can be committed against the person of an individual and demands urgent attention due to the spike in the rate of its occurrences. In this article, an attempt has been made to formulate a uniform sentencing policy for rape convicts and to analyse the ramifications of allowing out-of-court compromises, between the convict and the victim, upon such a policy. It begins by tracing the extent of sexual violence in India, defining and discussing the offence of rape as provided in the Indian Penal Code. Thereafter it examines how courts have dealt with the question of allowing rape convicts to make compromises with the victims ...

Comentários aos arts. 492 e 493 do CPC. In Novo Código de Processo Civil Comentado-Tomo II (art. 318 ao art. 770) 3 COORDENADORES SÉRGIO LUIZ DE ALMEIDA RIBEIRO ROBERTO P. CAMPOS GOUVEIA FILHO IZABEL CRISTINA PINHEIRO CARDOSO PANTALEÃO LUCIO GRASSI DE GOUVEIA NOVO CÓDIGO DE PROCESSO CIVIL COMENTADO Tomo II (art. 318 ao art. 770)

Internal corporate compliance programs have produced an unanticipated dilemma for many businesses: when a company responds to regulatory incentives by starting a comprehensive compliance program that promotes lawful conduct, it risks generating incriminating information that may produce criminal or civil liability. This Article argues that, in order to eliminate the dilemma posed by the potential disclosure of adverse compliance materials, a limited evidentiary privilege must be established to protect certain compliance materials from disclosure. With this in mind, Part II describes corporate compliance programs in further detail, traces their theoretical underpinnings, and explains the effect of the Sentencing Guidelines. Part III surveys the ad hoc common-law and statutory solutions to the dilemma faced by businesses considering internal compliance programs. Finally, Part IV concludes that statutory protection of compliance materials is vital to promoting compliance programs and proposes legislation shielding certain materials generated under programs that meet Sentencing Guidelines requirements.

2018 is a significant year in the death penalty jurisprudence in India as it has recorded the highest number of death sentences imposed by the trial courts in two decades. The state of Madhya Pradesh witnessed a dramatic increase in the number of death sentences from 6 in 2017 to 22 in 2018, which was the highest by any state in the year. In this article, I analyse the 22 death sentences awarded by the trial courts of Madhya Pradesh in 21 cases decided in 2018. This analysis is done in light of the principle of individualised sentencing and standard of collective conscience. I argue that the trial courts of Madhya Pradesh have moved further away from individualised sentencing especially after the legislative and executive developments in the State in 2018. I find that the courts have not appreciated the mitigating circumstances and relied heavily on the aggravating circumstances especially on the collective conscience of the society. While invoking the utilitarian justifications, the courts have extensively used rhetorical devices to justify the ‘elimination’ of the accused for the welfare of the society.
Keywords: aggravating circumstances, collective conscience standard, individualised sentencing, mitigating circumstances

The aim of this article is to articulate and critically discuss different answers to the following question: How should decision-makers deal with conflicts that arise when the values usually entailed in ethical guidelines – such as accuracy, privacy, non-discrimination and transparency – for the use of Artificial Intelligence (e.g. algorithm-based sentencing) clash with one another? To begin with, I focus on clarifying some of the general advantages of using such guidelines in an ethical analysis of the use of AI. Some disadvantages will also be presented and critically discussed. Second, I will show that we need to distinguish between three kinds of conflict that can exist for ethical guidelines used in the moral assessment of AI. This section will be followed by a critical discussion of different answers to the question of how to handle what we shall call internal and external values conflicts. Finally, I will wrap up with a critical discussion of three different strategies to res...

The general, but false, perception of migrant smuggling through Indonesia, a large, archipel-agic country, is that smugglers operate entirely on their own. In fact, the more complex smuggling operations rely on broad networks of foreign organizers as well as local intermediaries and ground staff. In 2011, the Indonesian legislature introduced a severe minimum sentence for any involvement in migrant smuggling with the expectation that the judiciary would apply the sentence in all future cases. However, some judges proceeded to hand down sentences below the statutory minimum, arguing that the punishment is not commensurate to the relatively minor roles played by locals. This article examines how judges at all levels of the judiciary did so in ten related cases. In conclusion, it argues that statutory sentences are not mandatory in Indonesia and that, by applying below-minimum sentences, judges not only maintain judicial independence; they also effectively exercise a judicial review fu...

The title of my comment on the exciting paper by Benjamin Berger of course alludes to the famous book by Marvin E. Frankel from 1973,  which kicked off the sentencing guidelines and reform movement in the United States. As an introductory remark I will refer to some similarities between the Canadian and the German Criminal Justice and Sentencing System, then I will comment on the first part of Bergers paper with a focus on three topics, namely mandatory minimum sentences and constitutional review, the role of appellate courts and the role of public prosecutors in Germany’s sentencing system. In the second part, I will comment on Berger’s idea of “individualized proportionality” as a new fundamental principle in Canadian sentencing law by referring to some parallel discussions in the German sentencing discourse.

This was a presentation submitted to the Scottish Sentencing Council on 6th March 2017, based on my doctoral thesis 'Who cares: Analysing the place of children in maternal sentencing decisions in England and Wales' . Also available on the SSC website alongside a report of the meeting from the Council

Suspended sentences, although controversial, are used in most jurisdictions across Australia in some form, with most states and territories having introduced this sentencing option in the 1980s and 1990s. However, South Australia's legislation concerning suspended sentences is much older (having been introduced in 1969) and is also based on sentencing legislation that existed in the Victorian and Edwardian eras. This article will argue that because the legislation concerning suspended sentences in South Australia is much older (and based on even older legislation), the way that this sentencing option operates is much different from other Australian jurisdictions. Based on Victorian probation legislation, suspended sentences have a flexibility in South Australia, which has meant that other forms of alternative sentencing (such as community orders and home detention) are not used in the State.

Sumario 1. Introducción.-2. Una mirada al compliance, el rol del Estado y los modelos de res-ponsabilidad corporativa.-3. Las US Organizacional Sentencing Guidelines (OSG) y su influencia.-4. Conclusiones y camino para nuevas investigaciones.-5. Referencias bibliográficas. reSumen En poco más de una década los estudiosos del derecho penal económico europeo y latinoamericano atestiguaron el desarrollo pujante del compliance penal y un nuevo lenguaje técnico. En el Derecho penal del compliance la responsabilidad de la persona ju-rídica constituye un eje central entre un gran número de aspectos relevantes que exige evaluar los roles del Estado y los consecuentes modelos de responsabilidad corporativa que se relacionan con ellos y habrían sido adoptados por diversos países. En este devenir, de-sarrollaremos con especial atención el ejemplo de uno de los textos más antiguos, más técnicamente desarrollados e influyentes inter-nacionalmente en la materia, como ha sido el de las Organizational Sentencing Guidelines de los EE.UU. Esta legislación y su impacto práctico nos ofrece un banco privilegiado de pruebas para intentar reconocer el camino que nuestras legislaciones parecen haber co-menzado a emprender.

A quantitative empirical analysis of the sentencing decisions of the ad hoc tribunals and the Special Court of Sierra Leone with regard to the war crime of murder/unlawful killing considering the consistency in sentence imposed across and within the individual tribunals.

‘Drug mules’ are now recognised as a distinct
category of drug offender. It is widely agreed
that they play a minor role in the international
drug trade, and are sometimes coerced or
tricked into carrying drugs across borders, and
so merit lesser punishment proportionate with
their lesser role. In 2010, the United Nations
upon nations to ensure that punishment for
drug offences is proportionate.
This briefing paper examines a sentencing
innovation introduced in England and Wales
in 2012, with the stated aim of achieving
greater proportionality in the sentencing
of drug mules. Analysis shows that greater
proportionality has been achieved, although
some caveats must be made. Addressing
disproportionality especially benefits women
drug couriers. Critics have previously noted
that excluding mitigation, including caring
responsibilities, has produced a double
disproportionality.
Sentencing reform in England and Wales is an
important example of reform with potential
international relevance to nations currently
reviewing sentencing for drug trafficking offences,
that can usefully inform the development of more
proportionate punishments for drug couriers.

One of most sought after characteristics in sentencing is consistency. Magistrates, in Portugal, as in other several countries of continental law, mus t determine the sentence between a minimum and maximum time. By virtue of their discretion, it is up to them to impose the appropriate sentence, according to the culpability of the criminal defendant and the level of deterrence - general and specific - needed. Other than some general criteria set out by the Portuguese Criminal Law Code, such as the evaluation of the intensity of the intention or negligence of the agent, his motives or the gravity and consequences of the offense, to name a few, magistrates rely heavily on their personal experience. This means, however, the presence of discretion and, consequently, disparity in sentencing. Following previous studies and their theoretical framework (Monsieurs, Vanderhallen and Rozie, 2011), the need for new instruments such as sentencing guidelines was appraised among Portuguese magistrates (judges and prosecutors). Preliminary results show that the attitude of Portuguese magistrates towards sentencing guidelines is positive insofar as the possibility of departure is assured. 

Guilty pleas could be beneficial for defendants, society and victims unless the commensurate sentence reductions awarded in recognition of the expediency of such pleas obscures their benefits. In England and Wales, the Sentencing Council's guidelines on reduction in sentence for a guilty plea, along with the Court of Appeal's guidelines on giving advance indication of sentence, have been criticised for placing unacceptable pressure on defendants to induce them to plead guilty instead of going to trial. This article explores how the current practice of sentence reduction for guilty pleas works in England and Wales.

The current restorative justice theory dwells theoretically outside the penal proceeding or penal court in order to mediate a resolution between the victim and the offender; and sometimes with each representatives and/or wider community as well, as such the modern restorative justice becomes the based theory for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) or Penal Mediation. But the traditional restorative justice did not show the outside the court proceeding such as the modern theory has. While studying and building a recommendation for a sentencing guideline theory that can provide justice, deterrent effect, and possibly effectively achieving Criminal Justice's goals; it is found that the traditional Restorative Justice model is the key in building a Criminal Justice System that is just, deterrent, and yet humane and merciful. Adopting the traditional way of Restorative Justice, while still taking the best part of the modern one, can be what is needed in answering the current conditions of criminal justice system in Indonesia; and possibly elsewhere, that is full of outcry of injustice, increasing crimes, heavy economic burden in enforcing the law, and repeating crimes. Built by adopting the same principle of God's Law in Karmic Law, and using a framework which is derived from Indonesian Ideology; Pancasila (The 5 Values), which could be generalized into one basic value that is " equilibrium of values " 1, this paper describes a Restorative Justice based model in a Sentencing Reform. Thus is argued that; if adopted, will create a ripple of positive changes in Sentencing Guideline theory and/or its implementation. Restorative Justice-based Penal Code and Criminal Justice Reform that can provide the foundation toward a criminal justice system that is humane but decisive and definite; and therefore will achieve justice: a Criminal Justice Reform that is just and oriented humanely to the perpetrator, the victim, and the state (In Dutch can be called: Dader-slachtoffer-staat Straftrecht).

Credit card fraud presents an impressive array of forms and methods, often involving sophisticated means, organized crime aspects, and very significant criminal proceeds. Based on an extensive inquiry that involved the study of a large number of credit card fraud cases brought to the United States federal courts in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(1)-(5), press releases from law enforcement organizations, and information security reports, this article discusses the legal elements, the essential perpetration aspects, and the most relevant sentencing enhancements for these crimes, and proposes a number of improvements. The contributions of this article can be used for a more effective legal and judicial response in the process of risk identification and mitigation, and for developing awareness and training programs. Although the article focuses on one jurisdiction, the findings, particularly those in the perpetration aspects section, and the conclusion would be useful to a global audience.

Are closely comparable common -law countries following the path forged by England and Wales by moving towards the development of systematic sentencing guidelines developed by a Sentencing Council? And if they are not, how are these different paths explicable? This chapter examines whether the approach of England and Wales has or will spread to its nearest neighbour, Scotland. In so doing, the chapter aims to contribute to the international endeavour to understand the politics and conditions of sentencing reform.

It will be argued that the political support for the development of guidelines and a Council is a response to one or more of five broad aspirations, support for which tend to inspire and motivate sentencing reform world-wide. These aspirations are expressed in distinct ways in different countries. In Scotland, a series of reforms have had the effect of diverting support away from the introduction of systematic guidelines and a Council. Instead of appearing to confront the judicial ‘ownership’ of sentencing,  Scottish policy has largely sought to coax, enable, and persuade sentencing judges to choose to adjust their decision-making.
By charting key developments in Scottish sentencing policy, it will be argued that this largely voluntary and permissive approach has dominated Scottish policy-making discourse in part because it appears to stand firm against a supposedly more prescriptive, punitive, and less humane approach thought to be exemplified by systematic guidelines in England and Wales. In that sense, it is important to understand Scottish sentencing policy-making in the context of Scottish perceptions about and resistance to its larger neighbour to the south, and a self-conscious pride in Scotland’s separate legal and civic national identity. Yet while the approaches of both jurisdictions clearly differ and those differences are magnified in political discourse, they nonetheless present shared problems, not least in achieving impact on sentencing practice.

The current restorative justice theory dwells theoretically outside the penal proceeding or penal court in order to mediate a resolution between the victim and the offender; and sometimes with each representatives and/or wider community as well, as such the modern restorative justice becomes the based theory for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) or Penal Mediation. But the traditional restorative justice did not show the outside the court proceeding such as the modern theory has.
While studying and building a recommendation for a sentencing guideline theory that can provide justice, deterrent effect, and possibly effectively achieving Criminal Justice’s goals; it is found that the traditional Restorative Justice model is the key in building a Criminal Justice System that is just, deterrent, and yet humane and merciful. Adopting the traditional way of Restorative Justice, while still taking the best part of the modern one, can be what is needed in answering the current conditions of criminal justice system in Indonesia; and possibly elsewhere, that is full of outcry of injustice, increasing crimes, heavy economic burden in enforcing the law, and repeating crimes.   
Built by adopting the same principle of God’s Law in Karmic Law, and using a framework which is derived from Indonesian Ideology; Pancasila (The 5 Values), which could be generalized into one basic value that is “equilibrium of values”, this paper describes a Restorative Justice based model in a Sentencing Reform. Thus is argued that; if adopted, will create a ripple of positive changes in Sentencing Guideline theory and/or its implementation. Restorative Justice-based Penal Code and Criminal Justice Reform that can provide the foundation toward a criminal justice system that is humane but decisive and definite; and therefore will achieve justice: a Criminal Justice Reform that is just and oriented humanely to the perpetrator, the victim, and the state (In Dutch can be called: Dader-slachtoffer-staat Straftrecht).