Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party. You may opt out at any time by following the unsubscribe link included in every email.
Special Discounts for Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 28th May, re-opening on Tuesday 29th.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual credit cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any Sweet & Maxwell or Lexis eBook orders placed after 4pm on the Friday 25th May will not be processed until Tuesday May 29th. UK orders for other publishers will be processed as normal. All non-UK eBook orders will be processed on Tuesday May 29th.
How do judges sentence? In particular, how important is judicial discretion in sentencing? Sentencing guidelines are often said to promote consistency but is consistency in sentencing achievable or even desirable?
Whilst the passing of a sentence is arguably the most public stage of the criminal justice process, there have been few attempts to examine judicial perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the sentencing process.
Through interviews with Scottish judges and by presenting a comprehensive review and analysis of recent scholarship on sentencing - including a comparative study of UK, Irish and Commonwealth sentencing jurisprudence - this book explores these issues to present a systematic theory of sentencing.
Through an integration of the concept of equity as particularised justice, the Aristotelian concept of phronesis (or "practical wisdom"), the concept of value pluralism, and the focus of appellate courts throughout the Commonwealth on sentencing by way of "instinctive synthesis", it is argued that judicial sentencing methodology is best viewed in terms of a phronetic synthesis of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.
The author concludes that sentencing is best conceptualised as a form of case-orientated, concrete and intuitive decision making; one that seeks individualisation through judicial recognition of the profoundly contextualised nature of the process.