Contents

[close]

JCL 69 (2005) 50

Giving content to the principle of proportionality: happiness and pain as the universal currency for matching offence seriousness and penalty severity
Mirko Bagaric and James McConvill 

The principle of proportionality prescribes that the punishment should equal the crime. It is one of the most important principles of sentencing. Yet, despite its widespread acceptance it offers no meaningful guide to sentencing. Hence penalty levels fluctuate greatly between jurisdictions and within jurisdictions. This is because there is no universally agreed criterion for measuring offence seriousness or penalty severity. This article suggests that the appropriate criteria for matching offence seriousness and penalty severity is the level of unhappiness or pain stemming from each of these impositions. Thus, for example, the level of pain meted out to a rape offender should equal the level of pain caused to a rape victim. Emerging scientific studies on human well-being and happiness show that human beings are similarly built in terms of the experiences that are either conducive or inimical to well-being. This commonality provides a strong foundation to be confident to make reasonably accurate predictions concerning the extent to which adverse events, such as being the victim of a criminal offence or subjected to a form of criminal sanction will stifle human flourishing. This will then allow us to match accurately offence seriousness and penalty level.

[close]

[close]

JCL 69 (2005) 75

What next for public interest immunity?
Chris Taylor 

This article examines recent developments in the law of public interest immunity (PII), a mechanism for the non-disclosure of sensitive material to the defence which continues to cause concern as a potential source of injustice. The article considers the lessons to be learned from recent decisions, most notably the London City Bond cases which saw a large number of prosecutions tainted by misuse of PII. This series of cases illustrated the ethical dilemma faced by investigators anxious to preserve covert intelligence sources, primarily informants, and the way in which the courts may be misled during PII applications in order to avoid jeopardising the prosecution. The article then considers a number of recent domestic and European decisions which have sought to refine the procedure for considering PII applications in order to evaluate their impact on the trial process and the administration of justice.

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 65 (2001) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 66 (2002) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 67 (2003) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 68 (2004) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 69 (2005) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 70 (2006) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 71 (2007) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 72 (2008) :   1   2   3   4   5   6

Volume 73 (2009) :   1   2   3   4   6

Volume 74 (2010) :   1   2   3   4

[close]