Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts

Sefiew Ayenew Demle

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12

| Peer-Reviewed

Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts

Sefiew Ayenew Demle

Published in International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 5, Issue 1)

Received: 2 December 2021 Accepted: 30 December 2021 Published: 12 January 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

Disparities of sentencing in similar crimes cause a typical problem; Law scholars devoted their time to reconcile the debate “should the crime fit with the individual or should the individual behavior fit with the type of crime that she or he committed?” This has remained an issue in criminal sentencing. It is the most crucial stage in criminal justice system because crime is an inevitable phenomenon in human social life. In addition, sentencing is a means designed to give notice for the general public by described punishable crimes and to punish a criminal that he/she have to be convicted by a court of law. In ancient times, punishment was premised on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and punishments were degrading and inhumane by today’s standard. These days punishments are relatively humane and focus on rehabilitation. Many universal human right instruments provide for the rights of convicted persons and many countries are members of these instruments. Sentencing disparity is a problem everywhere, and countries have adopted sentencing guidelines to solve this problem. Ethiopia is one of them that adopted and revised the first and the second sentencing guidelines in 2010 and 2013 respectively. The study has applied qualitative and doctrinal legal research method that revealed the following points. The general objective of this study is to explore whether the Ethiopian Federal Supreme court sentencing guidelines could tackle the unwarranted sentencing disparities in federal courts or not. In addition, the main purposes of the sentencing guidelines have to ensure proportionality, consistency, predictability and fairness of sentencing throughout in the country on federal matters. However, the principles of alike cases were not getting uniformity of decision that have been realized in many scenarios; the sentencing guidelines from design to practices shown that it was unable to stop unwarranted disparities of sentencing due to different factors. The lack of clarity of sentencing guidelines, the lack of mutual understanding of the legal practitioners to the sentencing guidelines, lack of supervision and controlling mechanisms of the sentencing guidelines were considered as the root causes of sentencing disparities.

Published in	International Journal of Law and Society (Volume 5, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12
Page(s)	11-18
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Sentencing Guidelines, Sentencing Disparities, Criminal Justice System, Structured Sentencing

References

[1]	Terance D. Miethe and Hong Lu (2005), Punishment: A Comparative Historical Respective, Cambridge, 2005 p. 10.
[2]	Brian J. Ostrom Charles W. Ostrom and et al and et al (2006), Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States, National State Courts, p. 1.
[3]	Terance D. Miethe and Hong Lu (2005), supra reference 1.
[4]	Art. 82, 83, 84, 85 of the criminal code of the Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazeta Proc. No. 414/2004,Addis Ababa.
[5]	Elias N. Stebek (2006), Ethiopian criminal law Digest Part I & II, St. Mary’s University College Fa- culty of Law, Addis Ababa, p. 21.
[6]	James A. Inciardi, (1984), Criminal Justice, Seventh Edition, Harcourt, Inc. pp. 424-425.
[7]	Robert M. Bohm and Keith N. Haley (2007), Introduction to Criminal Justice, fourth edition, McGraw Hill, p. 32.
[8]	Dejene G. (2013). A Hand Book on the Criminal Code of Ethiopia, Far East Trading, Plc Federal High Court, File No. 54027, January 10, 2008, Addis Ababa. PP. 152-155.
[9]	Art. 1 of the criminal code of the Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazeta Proc. No. 414/2004, Addis Ababa.
[10]	Michael R. Gottfredson and Don M. Gottfredson (1998), Decision Making in Criminal Justice, towards the rational exercise of Discretion 2^nd Edition, New York, p. 11.
[11]	Mrs. Glory Nirmala K. and Ato Serkaddis Zegeye (2009), Criminal law I, teaching material, Prepared under the Sponsorship of the Justice and Legal System Research Institute unpublished, p. 12.
[12]	James A. Inciardi, (1984), Criminal Justice, Seventh Edition, Harcourt, Inc. p. 437.
[13]	James A. Inciardi, (1984), Criminal Justice, Seventh Edition, Harcourt, Inc., p. 438.
[14]	James A. Inciardi, (1984), Criminal Justice, Seventh Edition, Harcourt, Inc., p. 439.
[15]	Art 149 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[16]	Art. 138 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[17]	Art. 149 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[18]	Art. 148 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[19]	Aderajew Teklu and Kedir Mohamed (2009), Ethiopian Criminal Procedure, Teaching Material, Sponsored by Justice and Legal System Research Institute, Addis Ababa, p. 275.
[20]	Art. 149 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[21]	Art. 149 (7) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[22]	Art. 149 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[23]	James A. Inciardi, (1984), Criminal Justice, Seventh Edition, Harcourt, Inc., p. 433.
[24]	Andargachew Tesfaye (2004), the Crime Problem and Its Correction, Addis Ababa University, Press, p. 94.
[25]	Andargachew Tesfaye (2004), the Crime Problem and Its Correction, Addis Ababa University, Press, pp. 94 & 96.
[26]	Andargachew Tesfaye (2004), the Crime Problem and Its Correction, Addis Ababa University, Press, p. 95.
[27]	Sue Rex Michael Tonry (2002), Reform and Punishment, the Future of Sentencing Willan, pp. 89-92.
[28]	Lowenstein S. (1965). Materials for the Study of the Penal Law of Ethiopia, the faculty of law, Haile Sellassie I university, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[29]	Art. 148 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[30]	Art. 138 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[31]	Art. 136 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Empire of Ethiopia, 1961.
[32]	Sentencing Guidelines of FDRE for Federal Supreme Court No. 01/2010 and 02/2013.
[33]	Art. 84 of the criminal code of the Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazeta Proc. No. 414/2004, Addis Ababa.
[34]	Art. 82 (e) of the criminal code of the Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazeta Proc. No. 414/2004, Addis Ababa.
[35]	Art. 88 (4) of the criminal code of the Federal Democratic Republic Ethiopia, Federal Negarit Gazeta Proc. No. 414/2004, Addis Ababa.
[36]	Art. 27 (1-3) of the revised federal supreme courts sentencing manual No. 02/20 13.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sefiew Ayenew Demle. (2022). Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts. International Journal of Law and Society, 5(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sefiew Ayenew Demle. Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts. Int. J. Law Soc. 2022, 5(1), 11-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sefiew Ayenew Demle. Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts. Int J Law Soc. 2022;5(1):11-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12,
  author = {Sefiew Ayenew Demle},
  title = {Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {5},
  number = {1},
  pages = {11-18},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20220501.12},
  abstract = {Disparities of sentencing in similar crimes cause a typical problem; Law scholars devoted their time to reconcile the debate “should the crime fit with the individual or should the individual behavior fit with the type of crime that she or he committed?” This has remained an issue in criminal sentencing. It is the most crucial stage in criminal justice system because crime is an inevitable phenomenon in human social life. In addition, sentencing is a means designed to give notice for the general public by described punishable crimes and to punish a criminal that he/she have to be convicted by a court of law. In ancient times, punishment was premised on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and punishments were degrading and inhumane by today’s standard. These days punishments are relatively humane and focus on rehabilitation. Many universal human right instruments provide for the rights of convicted persons and many countries are members of these instruments. Sentencing disparity is a problem everywhere, and countries have adopted sentencing guidelines to solve this problem. Ethiopia is one of them that adopted and revised the first and the second sentencing guidelines in 2010 and 2013 respectively. The study has applied qualitative and doctrinal legal research method that revealed the following points. The general objective of this study is to explore whether the Ethiopian Federal Supreme court sentencing guidelines could tackle the unwarranted sentencing disparities in federal courts or not. In addition, the main purposes of the sentencing guidelines have to ensure proportionality, consistency, predictability and fairness of sentencing throughout in the country on federal matters. However, the principles of alike cases were not getting uniformity of decision that have been realized in many scenarios; the sentencing guidelines from design to practices shown that it was unable to stop unwarranted disparities of sentencing due to different factors. The lack of clarity of sentencing guidelines, the lack of mutual understanding of the legal practitioners to the sentencing guidelines, lack of supervision and controlling mechanisms of the sentencing guidelines were considered as the root causes of sentencing disparities.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts
AU  - Sefiew Ayenew Demle
Y1  - 2022/01/12
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 11
EP  - 18
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12
AB  - Disparities of sentencing in similar crimes cause a typical problem; Law scholars devoted their time to reconcile the debate “should the crime fit with the individual or should the individual behavior fit with the type of crime that she or he committed?” This has remained an issue in criminal sentencing. It is the most crucial stage in criminal justice system because crime is an inevitable phenomenon in human social life. In addition, sentencing is a means designed to give notice for the general public by described punishable crimes and to punish a criminal that he/she have to be convicted by a court of law. In ancient times, punishment was premised on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and punishments were degrading and inhumane by today’s standard. These days punishments are relatively humane and focus on rehabilitation. Many universal human right instruments provide for the rights of convicted persons and many countries are members of these instruments. Sentencing disparity is a problem everywhere, and countries have adopted sentencing guidelines to solve this problem. Ethiopia is one of them that adopted and revised the first and the second sentencing guidelines in 2010 and 2013 respectively. The study has applied qualitative and doctrinal legal research method that revealed the following points. The general objective of this study is to explore whether the Ethiopian Federal Supreme court sentencing guidelines could tackle the unwarranted sentencing disparities in federal courts or not. In addition, the main purposes of the sentencing guidelines have to ensure proportionality, consistency, predictability and fairness of sentencing throughout in the country on federal matters. However, the principles of alike cases were not getting uniformity of decision that have been realized in many scenarios; the sentencing guidelines from design to practices shown that it was unable to stop unwarranted disparities of sentencing due to different factors. The lack of clarity of sentencing guidelines, the lack of mutual understanding of the legal practitioners to the sentencing guidelines, lack of supervision and controlling mechanisms of the sentencing guidelines were considered as the root causes of sentencing disparities.
VL  - 5
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Sefiew Ayenew Demle

Department of Crime Intelligence, Ethiopian Police University, Sendafa, Ethiopia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Sefiew Ayenew Demle. (2022). Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts. International Journal of Law and Society, 5(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Sefiew Ayenew Demle. Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts. Int. J. Law Soc. 2022, 5(1), 11-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Sefiew Ayenew Demle. Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts. Int J Law Soc. 2022;5(1):11-18. doi: 10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12,
  author = {Sefiew Ayenew Demle},
  title = {Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts},
  journal = {International Journal of Law and Society},
  volume = {5},
  number = {1},
  pages = {11-18},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijls.20220501.12},
  abstract = {Disparities of sentencing in similar crimes cause a typical problem; Law scholars devoted their time to reconcile the debate “should the crime fit with the individual or should the individual behavior fit with the type of crime that she or he committed?” This has remained an issue in criminal sentencing. It is the most crucial stage in criminal justice system because crime is an inevitable phenomenon in human social life. In addition, sentencing is a means designed to give notice for the general public by described punishable crimes and to punish a criminal that he/she have to be convicted by a court of law. In ancient times, punishment was premised on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and punishments were degrading and inhumane by today’s standard. These days punishments are relatively humane and focus on rehabilitation. Many universal human right instruments provide for the rights of convicted persons and many countries are members of these instruments. Sentencing disparity is a problem everywhere, and countries have adopted sentencing guidelines to solve this problem. Ethiopia is one of them that adopted and revised the first and the second sentencing guidelines in 2010 and 2013 respectively. The study has applied qualitative and doctrinal legal research method that revealed the following points. The general objective of this study is to explore whether the Ethiopian Federal Supreme court sentencing guidelines could tackle the unwarranted sentencing disparities in federal courts or not. In addition, the main purposes of the sentencing guidelines have to ensure proportionality, consistency, predictability and fairness of sentencing throughout in the country on federal matters. However, the principles of alike cases were not getting uniformity of decision that have been realized in many scenarios; the sentencing guidelines from design to practices shown that it was unable to stop unwarranted disparities of sentencing due to different factors. The lack of clarity of sentencing guidelines, the lack of mutual understanding of the legal practitioners to the sentencing guidelines, lack of supervision and controlling mechanisms of the sentencing guidelines were considered as the root causes of sentencing disparities.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Sentencing Guidelines and Their Applications in Ethiopian Federal Courts
AU  - Sefiew Ayenew Demle
Y1  - 2022/01/12
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12
T2  - International Journal of Law and Society
JF  - International Journal of Law and Society
JO  - International Journal of Law and Society
SP  - 11
EP  - 18
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2640-1908
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijls.20220501.12
AB  - Disparities of sentencing in similar crimes cause a typical problem; Law scholars devoted their time to reconcile the debate “should the crime fit with the individual or should the individual behavior fit with the type of crime that she or he committed?” This has remained an issue in criminal sentencing. It is the most crucial stage in criminal justice system because crime is an inevitable phenomenon in human social life. In addition, sentencing is a means designed to give notice for the general public by described punishable crimes and to punish a criminal that he/she have to be convicted by a court of law. In ancient times, punishment was premised on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” and punishments were degrading and inhumane by today’s standard. These days punishments are relatively humane and focus on rehabilitation. Many universal human right instruments provide for the rights of convicted persons and many countries are members of these instruments. Sentencing disparity is a problem everywhere, and countries have adopted sentencing guidelines to solve this problem. Ethiopia is one of them that adopted and revised the first and the second sentencing guidelines in 2010 and 2013 respectively. The study has applied qualitative and doctrinal legal research method that revealed the following points. The general objective of this study is to explore whether the Ethiopian Federal Supreme court sentencing guidelines could tackle the unwarranted sentencing disparities in federal courts or not. In addition, the main purposes of the sentencing guidelines have to ensure proportionality, consistency, predictability and fairness of sentencing throughout in the country on federal matters. However, the principles of alike cases were not getting uniformity of decision that have been realized in many scenarios; the sentencing guidelines from design to practices shown that it was unable to stop unwarranted disparities of sentencing due to different factors. The lack of clarity of sentencing guidelines, the lack of mutual understanding of the legal practitioners to the sentencing guidelines, lack of supervision and controlling mechanisms of the sentencing guidelines were considered as the root causes of sentencing disparities.
VL  - 5
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download