Proportionality - An Unattainable Ideal in the Criminal Justice System

In spite of its centrality in the criminal justice system, the principle of proportionality is poorly defined, and its role in judicial sentencing rests on shaky ground. The idea that criminal sanctions should be imposed only in proportion to those crimes to which they seek to respond is well recognised and ostensibly applied in most modern legal systems. However, by examining the role of proportionality in actual judicial sentencing, it is apparent that its application is highly problematic. Indeed, proportionality is founded on criminal punishment theories that are mired in complex and unresolved debates, offering little guidance to judges on the role of proportionality and the way it should be applied in sentencing. Moreover, proportionality competes with other sentencing goals, potentially giving rise to incompatibility when various objectives of criminal punishment are prescribed by sentencing guidelines. Further, it is crucial to note that crime and punishment are fundamentally disparate matters that do not in themselves possess any common benchmark for comparison vis-à-vis each other. Therefore, any proportionality that may exist between an offence and a sentence must necessarily be sought elsewhere in social sentiments. Ultimately, the only meaningful and practical ‘proportionality’ that may exist in criminal punishment can only be the manifestation of society’s opinions and moral assumptions. Consequently, the principle of proportionality cannot be an objective ideal to be attained but rather a goal to be continually strived for.