UDTR — Radar mondial des droits de la Nature

Individualization of Sentences in Comparative Criminal Law: Between National Tradition and International Influences

Identification

Clé publique

radar:r-c83729399a099bb27e1fc784e061f380

Auteurs

Mihai Ştefănoaia

Année déclarée

2025

Langue déclarée

en

Type source

article

Première détection

2026-11-13T08:55:22.556067+00:00

Dernière observation des métadonnées

2026-11-13T08:55:22.556067+00:00

Dernière vérification HTTP

Non effectuée

Institutions déclarées par la source

Ştefan cel Mare University of Suceava

Pays d’affiliation déclarés

RO

Résumé documentaire — langue originale

The topic of sentence individualization in comparative criminal law explores how various legal systems define, regulate, and apply the principle of proportionality in criminal sanctions, based on the specifics of the offense and the offender. The study starts from the conceptual premises of judicial individualization, examining the duality between objective legal criteria and the court's subjective assessment in determining the appropriate sentence. A comparison is made between civil law systems (e.g., France, Germany, Romania) and common law systems (e.g., the United States, the United Kingdom), highlighting the differences between codified and case law-based models of individualization. The analysis considers the influence of international standards, particularly the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and documents issued by the UN and the Council of Europe on fair treatment and the proportionality of sanctions. Recent trends are identified, such as the introduction of sentencing guidelines, the role of probation boards, and the use of interdisciplinary assessments in tailoring sentences, as well as the impact of cultural, socio-legal, and political factors on judicial practice. The paper proposes a critical reflection on the necessary balance between judicial discretion, the need for consistency in criminal justice, and the imperative of respecting fundamental rights, with an emphasis on the importance of predictability and transparency in the sentencing process.

Identifiants

OPENALEX

https://openalex.org/W7204046539

DOI

10.62768/plpa/2025/14/3/02

Repères documentaires

Famille documentaire

article

Types déclarés par les sources

article

Éditeurs

ADJURIS – International Academic Publisher

Les mentions d’entités ne constituent pas une preuve de reconnaissance juridique. La juridiction étudiée est distincte du pays d’affiliation des auteurs.

Sources

OpenAlex · Document 1

• Document · https://doi.org/10.62768/plpa/2025/14/3/02

Statut documentaire

Pertinence à examiner

Bibliothèque

Cette identité n’est pas encore intégrée à la Bibliothèque juridique.