Statutory Sentencing Reform in Israel: Exploring the Sentencing Law of 2012

Abstract

In 2012 the Knesset approved a new sentencing law. Israel thus became the latest jurisdiction to introduce statutory directions for courts to follow in sentencing. The approach of the United States to structuring judicial discretion often entails the use of a sentencing grid with presumptive sentencing ranges. In contrast, the Sentencing Act of Israel reflects a less prescriptive method: it provides guidance by words rather than numbers. Retributivism is clearly identified as the penal philosophy underpinning the new law, which takes a novel approach to promoting more proportionate sentencing. Courts are directed to construct an individualised proportionate sentencing range appropriate to the case in hand. Once this is established, the court then follows additional directions regarding factors and principles related to sentencing. Although other jurisdictions have placed the purposes and principles of sentencing on a statutory footing, this is the first such legislative declaration in Israel. The statute also contains a methodology to implement a proportional approach to sentencing as well as detailed guidance on sentencing factors. This article describes and explores the new Sentencing Act, making limited comparisons to sentencing reforms in other jurisdictions -principally England and Wales, New Zealand and the United States. In concluding, we speculate on the likely consequences of the law: will it achieve the goals of promoting more consistent and principled sentencing?

Parent-to-Child Violence: Does Gender Matter in Sentencing Decisions?

“…Such results had already materialized in jurisdictions that had adopted similar policies in other countries (Gazal-Ayal & Lowenstein Lazar, 2011). For example, a preliminary examination of the effect of the law on illegal entry into Israel indicated that the proportionality principle has been used to justify an increase in the severity of sentences (Roberts & Gazal-Ayal, 2013). In a similar vein, Klein (2016) noted that the in the United States, discretion in sentencing (The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (led not only to significantly harsher federal sentencing compared with state sentencing, but also increased sentencing disparity between Blacks and Whites.…”

Negotiating penal hybridity: Time–space boundary-work in parole decision making

“…This policy implemented an increased use of supervision laws for sex and violent offenders and electronic monitoring as a parole condition (Efodi, 2014;Rosenfeld and Noah, 2021;Shoham et al, 2015). In regard to sentencing, following a major legal reform in 2012, Israeli sentencing law adopted a retributive penal philosophy and promulgated proportionality as the main ('guiding') sentencing principle (Roberts and Gazal-Ayal, 2013). The law allowed a departure from the offence-based proportionate sentencing range for rehabilitation (as mitigation) and for public protection (as aggravation) and gave criminal history only limited weight (Roberts and Gazal-Ayal, 2013;von Hirsch, 2017).…”

“…Scholars have also found that boundary-work—whether boundary-making or boundary-spanning—may involve transformations of time and space to construct physical, symbolic, emotional or symbolic boundaries between social actors (Glimmerveen et al, 2020; Lamont and Molnár, 2002; Stjerne et al, 2019; Stephenson et al, 2020). Temporal understandings and norms may have opposing or competing interpretations by different professionals.…”

“…Temporal understandings and norms may have opposing or competing interpretations by different professionals. To resolve these ‘temporal tensions’ and ensure project progression, professionals conducting temporal work may intersect with legal, social and political discourses to construct and navigate ‘timing norms’ (Stjerne et al, 2019: 349). This may include extending or shrinking temporal pace and synchronizing professional activities between past, present and future time (Glimmerveen et al, 2020; Stjerne et al, 2019).…”

Looking Beyond Risk in Paroling Denying Prisoners

“…In the determinate sentencing regime (e.g., United Kingdom, Canada, and Israel, for most offenses), punishment should be proportionate to desert (von Hirsch, 1976). The sentences imposed by the court reflect mainly proportionality of the seriousness of the offense committed by the offender and the degree of his or her culpability (see Roberts & gazal-Ayal, 2013). The impact of preventive or rehabilitative factors, unrelated to either the seriousness of the crime or offender culpability, is generally limited by a retributive limiting range, if there is one (American Law Institute, 2011;Morris, 1974;von Hirsch & Ashworth, 2005).…”