Abstract
This article proposes a partial solution to the anchoring problem in sentencing theory. I advance what I term the ‘commensurate harms principle’, according to which the losses and deprivations imposed on convicted offenders as punishment should be kept commensurate with the ‘standard’ harms (Von Hirsch and Jareborg, 1991: 4) their crimes cause victims. The principle is defended as an aid to setting sentences for core criminal offense types. Intelligent application of the principle requires us to gain an informed understanding of both the harms caused by crimes and the harms done by criminal sanctions, particularly imprisonment. Various objections to the principle are addressed, including claims that victim and penal harms cannot be compared and that the harms produced by crimes and criminal sanctions extend beyond victims and offenders. I contend that the commensurate harms principle would counsel the sparing use of imprisonment and often support less harsh sentences than are the norm in many countries.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
