"\u003chtml xmlns:o=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office\"\r\nxmlns:w=\"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word\"\r\nxmlns=\"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40\"\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003chead\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta http-equiv=Content-Type content=\"text/html; charset=windows-1252\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=ProgId content=Word.Document\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Generator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003cmeta name=Originator content=\"Microsoft Word 11\"\u003e\r\n\u003clink rel=File-List href=\"2021J8_files/filelist.xml\"\u003e\r\n\u003ctitle\u003eMITIGATING SENTENCING IN VARIOUS \u003c/title\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003co:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Author\u003eUser\u003c/o:Author\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Template\u003eNormal\u003c/o:Template\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastAuthor\u003eUser\u003c/o:LastAuthor\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Revision\u003e2\u003c/o:Revision\u003e\r\n  \u003co:TotalTime\u003e0\u003c/o:TotalTime\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Created\u003e2021-10-19T01:29:00Z\u003c/o:Created\u003e\r\n  \u003co:LastSaved\u003e2021-10-19T01:29:00Z\u003c/o:LastSaved\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Pages\u003e1\u003c/o:Pages\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Words\u003e3961\u003c/o:Words\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Characters\u003e22580\u003c/o:Characters\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Company\u003eHOME\u003c/o:Company\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Lines\u003e188\u003c/o:Lines\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Paragraphs\u003e52\u003c/o:Paragraphs\u003e\r\n  \u003co:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e26489\u003c/o:CharactersWithSpaces\u003e\r\n  \u003co:Version\u003e11.5606\u003c/o:Version\u003e\r\n \u003c/o:DocumentProperties\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:WordDocument\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotHyphenateCaps/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:PunctuationKerning/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridHorizontalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e6 pt\u003c/w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e0\u003c/w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e3\u003c/w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:UseMarginsForDrawingGridOrigin/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003efalse\u003c/w:ValidateAgainstSchemas\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003efalse\u003c/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:IgnoreMixedContent\u003efalse\u003c/w:IgnoreMixedContent\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003efalse\u003c/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotUnderlineInvalidXML/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:DoNotShadeFormData/\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:Compatibility\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:FootnoteLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ShapeLayoutLikeWW8/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:AlignTablesRowByRow/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:ForgetLastTabAlignment/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutRawTableWidth/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:LayoutTableRowsApart/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord97LineBreakingRules/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:SelectEntireFieldWithStartOrEnd/\u003e\r\n   \u003cw:UseWord2002TableStyleRules/\u003e\r\n  \u003c/w:Compatibility\u003e\r\n  \u003cw:BrowserLevel\u003eMicrosoftInternetExplorer4\u003c/w:BrowserLevel\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:WordDocument\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\u003c!--[if gte mso 9]\u003e\u003cxml\u003e\r\n \u003cw:LatentStyles DefLockedState=\"false\" LatentStyleCount=\"156\"\u003e\r\n \u003c/w:LatentStyles\u003e\r\n\u003c/xml\u003e\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n\u003c!--\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal\r\n\t{mso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmargin:0in;\r\n\tmargin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:12.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-fareast-font-family:\"Times New Roman\";}\r\n /* Page Definitions */\r\n @page\r\n\t{mso-page-border-surround-header:no;\r\n\tmso-page-border-surround-footer:no;}\r\n@page Section1\r\n\t{size:8.5in 11.0in;\r\n\tmargin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;\r\n\tmso-header-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-footer-margin:.5in;\r\n\tmso-paper-source:0;}\r\ndiv.Section1\r\n\t{page:Section1;}\r\n--\u003e\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c!--[if gte mso 10]\u003e\r\n\u003cstyle\u003e\r\n /* Style Definitions */\r\n table.MsoNormalTable\r\n\t{mso-style-name:\"Table Normal\";\r\n\tmso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-tstyle-colband-size:0;\r\n\tmso-style-noshow:yes;\r\n\tmso-style-parent:\"\";\r\n\tmso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;\r\n\tmso-para-margin:0in;\r\n\tmso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;\r\n\tmso-pagination:widow-orphan;\r\n\tfont-size:10.0pt;\r\n\tfont-family:\"Times New Roman\";\r\n\tmso-ansi-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-fareast-language:#0400;\r\n\tmso-bidi-language:#0400;}\r\n\u003c/style\u003e\r\n\u003c![endif]--\u003e\r\n\u003c/head\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cbody lang=EN-US style=\u0027tab-interval:.5in;text-justify-trim:punctuation\u0027\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cdiv class=Section1\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eMITIGATING SENTENCING\r\nIN VARIOUS \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eJURISDICTIONS: A\r\nCONSIDERATION FOR \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eTHE OFFENDER\u0027S\r\nREHABILITATIVE POTENTIAL \u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eBy\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eMuhammad Sher Abbas,\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eAdditional District\r\nand Sessions Judge/\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003ci\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eSenior Research\r\nOfficer, Lahore High Court, Lahore\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/i\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.5pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhile\r\nfacing punishment, every person has a right to know as to why and how a judge\r\nawarded him an increased or decreased sentence in view of the relevant\r\naggravating or mitigating circumstances. It is pertinent to note that social\r\nscientists are generally more inclined to avoid severe punishments like death\r\npenalty of the offenders through mitigating sentencing instead of winning a\r\nfreedom by disproving the guilt of the offender, in that, the overwhelming\r\nevidence of culpability against a criminal often establishes his guilt as an\r\ninevitable conclusion. To prioritise liberty of a defendant on invalid grounds\r\ninstead of exploring rehabilitating potential of preventing even the death\r\npenalty is a long notorious practice.\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e It is a common phenomenon\r\nthat since inception of the trial, the defence often does not stress on\r\nantecedents of the defendant involved in an offence so as to introduce dynamics\r\nof all encompassing strategy and fails to make the jurors and the court\r\nconversant with the ordinary course of his conduct in terms of his relationship\r\nwith the family, friends, acquaintances and enemies. There are a wide range of\r\nmitigating factors which help a court to determine reasonable sentence\r\ndepending upon the information as to the offence and the offender. This article\r\ndelineates the scope of mitigation which can be explored in various forms\r\nincluding even aggravating nature of serious crimes across every jurisdiction\r\nin cases proven beyond doubt. The aggravating factors may include a criminal\r\nact involving multiple victims or result of a promise for pecuniary gain, or\r\natrocious conduct of the defendant while committing a pre-meditated criminal\r\nact, or a prior history of his involvement in the acts of felony etc. At\r\npresent, the courts are ordinarily more inclined to consider all those\r\nrehabilitating factors which they believe, can reasonably be mitigating,\r\nwhether specified by the statute or not.\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e The mitigating evidence is\r\nalso characterised as the one involving substantially a lower burden of proof.\u003csup\u003e3\u003c/sup\u003e\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.5pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThere\r\nis no denying the fact that the majority of legal systems have evolved their\r\nsentencing policies which give the aggravating factors precedence over the\r\nmitigating ones. The statutory provisions and sentencing guidelines in those\r\njurisdictions also underscore greater focus on the aggravating rather than\r\nmitigating aspects of the criminal cases.\u003csup\u003e4\u003c/sup\u003e During the twentieth\r\ncentury, a paradigm shift to focus on mitigating \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:\r\n.1pt\u0027\u003efactors as a \u0027rehabilitative potential\u0027 constituted a paramount\r\nconsideration for the courts while tailoring the sentence of each \u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003edefendant. Conversely, there was also a rampant\r\nconcern about the increased distrust in discretion of judicial sentencing. The\r\nafore-referred situation necessitated the structured reforms once again which,\r\nby and large, made the punishments more severe through legislative actions.\u003csup\u003e5\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nHence, the divergent policy guidelines and statutory provisions had perforce to\r\nmake the courts reluctant to exercise their judicial discretion for mitigation\r\ninasmuch as uncertain theoretical approach on the subject failed to furnish a\r\nfirm derivation to mitigate the sentence and to justify the reduced\r\npunishments. For instance, a defendant with a diminished intellectual capacity\r\nmay be awarded a sentence for a shorter term due to a lesser degree of\r\nblameworthiness, by a judge with retributive outlook; but a utilitarian judge\r\nmay deem a longer sentence to be more appropriate for the same person in order\r\nto rule out repetition of an offence due to the same diminished intellectual\r\noutlook. Given the proposition, one judge may regard one factor as mitigating\r\nand the other judge may also treat the same factor as aggravating one.\r\nTherefore, the majority of judges across the globe are often indifferent to\r\nchoose aggravating or mitigating circumstances on the basis of their personal\r\nor whimsical philosophies and feel constrained to have recourse to the\r\nlegislative guidelines.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.5pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eIn\r\nevery criminal trial, the prosecution is invariably under obligation to prove\r\nthe guilt of the defendant beyond doubt. There has also been a procedural\r\nbifurcation in all the jurisdictions having capital punishment in their penal\r\nlaws with a view to concede a scope for weighing the mitigating evidence\r\nagainst aggravating incriminating material.\u003csup\u003e6\u003c/sup\u003e The aggravating pieces\r\nof evidence consist of those factors which may tend to enhance the gravity of\r\noffence i.e. the desperate and hardened character of the offender already\r\ninvolved in cases of identical nature. The Jurors and judges must also be keen\r\nto become familiar with the mitigating circumstances in evidence adduced before\r\nthem which may help rehabilitation through a reduced sentence. If any of the\r\njurors finds a mitigating factor, he is entitled to appraise its value in juxta\r\nposition with other available incriminating evidence.\u003csup\u003e7\u003c/sup\u003e Each and\r\nevery juror has to ponder over all those aggravating factors which stand\r\nestablished and then also take all the mitigating evidence into consideration\r\nin order to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether the former adequately\r\noutweighs the latter or vice versa. It is a celebrated principle that the\r\nquality of incriminating evidence of the aggravating or mitigating\r\ncircumstances always prevails and not the quantity thereof. Meaning thereby,\r\nthe only qualitative evidentiary value, and not numerical quantum thereof, will\r\nfind favour with a court of law. The inclusive policy of a lesser sentence\r\nemanates from the very concept that the punishment should be an exception and\r\nnot the rule. Such notion can be derived from a salutary principle and rationale\r\nunderlying the theories of punishment which do not legitimise the sentence if\r\nit is not sufficiently justified. This concept of justifying mitigating\r\ncircumstances as rehabilitating factors flows from the same commitment.\u003csup\u003e8\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nThe inherent principles to guide the sentencing decisions across various\r\njurisdictions have become virtually identical and a sentence is ordinarily\r\nimposed for one or more of the settled principles; \u003ci\u003einter alia\u003c/i\u003e for\r\nholding an offender to the account for the harm he caused to the individual\r\nvictim and the society, inculcating responsibility and acknowledgement of the\r\nharm in such an offender by denouncing his abominable conduct, safeguarding the\r\ninterest of the victim by remedying harm so caused to him by the offender, and\r\ndeterring the offender as well as other people from committing the similar\r\noffences. The court has to consider the character as well as the capacity of\r\nthe defendant and attending circumstances of the case leading to the criminal\r\nactivity despite asymmetrical concentration of the prosecution to demonstrate\r\nthe nature of the act or omission which may constitute an offence. The\r\nprosecution always focuses on one brief and vivid incident but the defence\r\nopens up entire life of the defendant\u003csup\u003e9\u003c/sup\u003e so as to enable the court\r\nanalyse mitigating situation in the broader perspective.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.5pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\ndeath sentence in a particular case, for example, can only be viable when the\r\ndefendant turns out to be \u0026quot;less than human\u0026quot;.\u003csup\u003e10\u003c/sup\u003e It was\r\npertinently argued by Haney that the society can tolerate only to eliminate\r\nthose from the human social order who, by their very nature, stand outside its\r\nboundaries\u0026quot;.\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e Therefore, the state always builds up a\r\nperception about shocking consequences of a gruesome activity to demonstrate\r\ninstinctive perversity and wickedness of the criminal. On the other hand, after\r\nhaving failed the argument of not guilty, the thrust of the defence brings home\r\nthe humanising perspective of rehabilitation by referring to a complete range\r\nof credentials of the life of the defendant. The bifurcation of the two-fold\r\ndefence for nullifying the evidence of guilt in the first place and then to\r\nconvince the jurors or the court as regards value of the life of the defendant\r\nin the second, by default, mutually undermines each other and often becomes\r\nsomewhat self-contradictory. The imposition of a penalty is more an issue of\r\nlegislative complexity than any other legal exploration, in that; the courts\r\nare obliged under the law to award a prescribed punishment. However, we also\r\nneed to examine this phenomenon as an academic issue for mitigation as a\r\nrehabilitation potential regardless of political will in various jurisdictions\r\nfor the capital sentence. Justice Blackmun, in the Edwin\u0027s case\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nhad observed that despite lapse of more than two decades, the thrust of the\r\nState and Courts for outlining legal and procedural rules remains elusive. He\r\nhad further held that even the capital sentence has become a daunting challenge\r\nas the judgements are often fraught with human mistakes; and at times, also\r\nturn out to be arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory. He added that only one\r\npercent approximately, of convicted offenders are actually awarded the death\r\nsentence and followed by execution thereof. The concurring judgement of Justice\r\nStevens in Ralph Baze\u0027s;\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e had also rejected three-fold societal\r\npurposes\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eincapacitation,\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edeterrence\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eretribution\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewarranting\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecapital punishment. He\r\nurged that life imprisonment without parole can equally incapacitate the\r\noffender and no empirical research could generate statistical data to\r\ndemonstrate that the capital punishment deterred potential offenders. The\r\nenormous majority of criminologists expound that the death penalty is not even\r\na greater deterrence than long term imprisonment for reforming the behaviour of\r\nthe potential offenders.\u003csup\u003e14\u003c/sup\u003e The theory of retribution also emanates\r\nfrom the thirst of emotional vengeance of the victim\u0027s\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efamily. The\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003epunishment\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebased\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esuch\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ean\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eirrational\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eoutlook\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003einstead of rehabilitating\r\npotential is ostensibly in conflict with a paradigm shift of global society for\r\ncalm and rationale decisions with humane punishments.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.5pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eWhenever\r\na particular statute provides for variable options of the nature and quantum of\r\npunishment for one or more of the offences, some kind of method may be required\r\nto determine the punishment. The court has to decide about the magnitude of\r\npenalty while exercising its judicial discretion following the conviction of a\r\ndefendant for the commission of a particular crime. The discretionary\r\nsentencing policy is often a blending of the judicial as well as legislative\r\ninnovations. For instance, Section 8(1) of the Sentencing Act, 2002 in the New\r\nZealand enjoins upon the courts to take into account the gravity of the\r\noffence, degree of the culpability, and magnitude of the damage in terms of the\r\nseriousness of the criminal conduct as such. Earlier, in many countries like\r\nAmerica, statutes readily specified a definite amount of punishment for many\r\ncrimes and the same sentence was liable to be imposed on all the defendants who\r\nwere convicts of those crimes. In the event of conviction, the role of a judge\r\nused to be very narrow and that of ministerial nature. He would not include any\r\nopinion for aggravating or mitigating factors in order to handing down a severe\r\npunishment on the upper limit. Nor was he required to dilate upon the\r\nextenuating or mitigating factors with a view to be flexible for a punishment\r\nat the lower end. Nonetheless, even in those days, the courts were obligated to\r\nexercise their discretion to allow reduction of the fixed sentence to the\r\nbenefit of the clergy and those using executive clemency authorities.\u003csup\u003e15\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nOver a period of time, the process of sentencing has become focused primarily\r\non mitigation. The defence attorneys have recognized introduction of mitigating\r\nevidence for more than two decades, as was pointed out by White.\u003csup\u003e16\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nHe also pointed out that such introduction explaining the defendant\u0027s social\r\nbackground and life history is generally the best way for dissuading the jury\r\nfrom imposing the severe penalty of an extreme nature.\u003csup\u003e17\u003c/sup\u003e However,\r\nthere are no two opinions that presence of a particular range of punishment for\r\na crime shall mandate the court, while determining a sentence after taking all\r\nthose mitigating factors into account including a rehabilitating potential of\r\nthe offender, for pronouncing punishment on the lower side of the prescribed\r\nrange in exercising its judicial discretion in a befitting manner. The option\r\nfor a life sentence even in the cases of capital sentence with overwhelming\r\nevidence of undeniable character cannot be ruled out by any stretch of\r\nimagination.\u003csup\u003e18\u003c/sup\u003e The defendant admitting the guilt may even disarm the\r\nstrategy of the prosecution for death penalty provided that the accused\r\nfurnishes some explanation to form a mitigating factor in his favour. The\r\nsituation may be equated with a play; and trial as one of its many acts. But\r\nthe defence needs to be more cautious as the presentation of the play must be\r\nconsistent with its production.\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e The mitigating factors must\r\nessentially comprise convincing and tangible evidence, compatible with the\r\nconnecting incriminating material, for facilitating the court to record cogent\r\nreasoning in consonance with the dynamics of its rehabilitating potential.\r\nMitigation is a focal point for sentencing process as it is conceptually\r\norganised for \u0026quot;rehabilitative ideal\u0026quot;.\u003csup\u003e20\u003c/sup\u003e The role of court\r\nassumes overriding significance to examine rehabilitative prospects in view of\r\nthe circumstances surrounding early release of the defendant from custody.\r\nHence the trial judge has to be conscious of broad discretion afforded to him\r\nwhile imposing sentencing terms.\u003csup\u003e21\u003c/sup\u003e The structured sentencing was\r\ncast aside by the U.S. Supreme Court in a litany of judgements since the year\r\n2000 owing to collapsing the rehabilitative ideal. For instance, the diminished\r\nmental capacity and youthful age of the defendant may operate as mitigating as\r\nwell as aggravating factors,\u003csup\u003e22\u003c/sup\u003e and had sparked difference of opinion\r\nviz-a-viz constitutionality of enhancements in statutory sentencing.\u003csup\u003e23\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nHence, a sentencing court may exceed narrow range of discretion on the basis\r\nof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efacts\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ereflected\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ejury\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003everdict\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eor\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eadmitted\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eby\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003edefendant.\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eBut\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eits\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efindings\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emust\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003esubstantiated\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethrough\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ereasoning\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eproven\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebeyond\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edoubt.\u003csup\u003e24\u003c/sup\u003e Otherwise, it can be\r\nviolative of the sentencing guidelines in derogation to the rehabilitating\r\nideal and will not legitimise the punishment so imposed.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.5pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eThe theories of punishment provide a\r\nframework for identifying those circumstances which may dictate the court for a\r\nshort or long term of sentence. These theories put forth justifications for\r\nimposition of penalty on a particular individual.\u003csup\u003e25\u003c/sup\u003e Although, the\r\ncommentators had proposed many theories of punishment but the fact remains that\r\nlargely all those theories fall in two categories i.e. (1) utilitarianism; to\r\nthwart future crimes, and (2) retributivism; to impose punishment on the\r\noffender who deserves it. These theories of punishment have been evolved to\r\ndistinguish the defendants for quantum of sentence they have to serve out.\r\nThese theories, in essence, help ascertain mitigating and aggravating\r\ncircumstance for the purposes of sentencing.\u003csup\u003e26\u003c/sup\u003e It is an obligation\r\nof a sentencing court to appropriately examine mitigating evidence potentially\r\nbeneficial to the defendant with a view to advance utilitarian approach and\r\nrealise the rehabilitative potential. The integrated theories articulate the\r\nstandard of care and the value ought to be attached for reinforcement of both\r\nthe guilt and the mitigation.\u003csup\u003e27\u003c/sup\u003e The (sic) of late guidelines on\r\nmitigating sentencing have become \u0026quot;well defined norms\u0026quot; which have\r\nlong been referred to by the judges.\u003csup\u003e28\u003c/sup\u003e The mitigation theory has\r\nalso become an overarching strategy of the defence to be presented at guilt and\r\ncompetent practitioners consistently resort to its thematic integration in\r\ntheir defence strategy. It is a matter of common knowledge that the prosecution\r\nis often more interested in securing conviction than a sentence even in the\r\ncases punishable with death but the prosecutor always brings the charge of\r\ncapital sentence. Similarly, the death-qualified jurors are often inclined for\r\ndeath sentence too.\u003csup\u003e29\u003c/sup\u003e Therefore, the need for a court to prioritise\r\na holistic outlook becomes all the more essential to mete out a rehabilitating\r\ntreatment to the person so charged. The judges often measure the mitigating\r\nfactors on the yardsticks of theories of punishment and couch their decisions\r\nprimarily turning upon the principles of retributivism and utilitarianism. The\r\nretributivism seeks to focus on two aspects i.e. blameworthiness of the\r\nculprit; and damage caused to the person or the property etc. However, the\r\nnotion became disputed as some retributivists used the term narrowly while\r\nreferring to the \u003ci\u003emense rea \u003c/i\u003eof the criminal while others referred to numerous\r\nother considerations such as the motive, cause and effect, and moral\r\nculpability etc.\u003csup\u003e30\u003c/sup\u003e Despite this disagreement of the retribitivists,\r\nthey concur with the analysis for decreased sentencing on the basis of certain\r\nfactors. For instance, most of them feel that a defendant attributed with\r\nlesser harm should receive lesser punishment. To illustrate, a defendant\r\ninvolved in embezzlement of 1000 GBP cannot be punished at par with another\r\nheld guilty for committing embezzlement of one million GBP. The quantum of\r\npunishment ought to commensurate with the harm they caused. As a natural\r\ncorollary, the one who caused lesser damage shall receive lesser sentence as\r\ncompared to another who inflicted greater damage and found liable for his\r\nlarger criminality under the same\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003estatute. Similarly, many retribitivists agree with the concept that\r\ncommission of crime by a person of tender age or diminished mental capacity\r\ncarries a lesser blameworthiness as against a person committing same crime with\r\nmature disposition and they describe the situation as extenuating one for\r\nrehabilitating the former who are more susceptible to negative external\r\npressures. Consequently, it becomes abundantly clear that the retributivist\r\nprinciples vindicate mitigating factors to advance rehabilitating outlook and\r\nmitigation finds ample scope under retribitivism.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.6pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eUtilitarianism\r\ncontemplates reduction of crime through punishment. Various punishment theories\r\naim at achieving this objective of crime reduction through deterrence,\r\nrehabilitation and incapacitation. The deterrence theory discourages an\r\nindividual to repeat offence and also others from perpetrating such offence.\u003csup\u003e31\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nSimilarly, the incapacitation makes the offender incapable to repeat the\r\ncommission of such crime. It seeks to impose a longer sentence in order to rule\r\nout any likelihood of reoffend by him. The rehabilitation theory urges to\r\nreform and amend behaviour of the offender by providing education and skill\u003csup\u003e32\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nwith a view to decrease the prospect of his future involvement in the criminal\r\nactivity. The purpose of all\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eutilitarians\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eis\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ereduce\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecrime\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethey\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewould\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eagree\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewhen\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea particular offence was\r\ncommitted under certain circumstances unlikely to happen again in order that\r\nthe mitigating factors for a shorter sentence might generate greater scope for\r\nthe rehabilitation potential. For instance, where a defendant had killed a\r\nperson in the course of an occurrence in which the victim, in an attempt to\r\ncommit burglary, gave a threat to grievous hurt or endangered life of the\r\ndefendant and the defendant was extremely remorseful on a loss of such life,\r\nmost of the utilitarians would urge for the mitigation of sentence because the\r\nrecurrence of\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esituation which entailed\r\nthe incident is unlikely to recur and had the defendant\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003enot\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eused\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edisproportionate\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eforce,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ehe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emight\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ehad\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eearned\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eacquittal on account of\r\nself-defence. Therefore, rigorous punishment of his death penalty for\r\ndeterrence or incapacitation will not serve a useful purpose. However, a\r\nutilitarian might inflict a lesser punishment so as to discourage the people\r\nhaving propensity to use excessive force for self-defence. There are numerous\r\nmitigating factors to suggest that a defendant shall not be inclined to\r\nreoffend and there was a high prospect of rehabilitation. Such mitigating\r\nconsiderations like no previous criminal history, advanced age, achievements of\r\nacademic, professional and social character etc. call for mitigation principles\r\nfor ample rehabilitative dynamics of the defendant.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;line-height:11.6pt;mso-line-height-rule:exactly;mso-pagination:none;\r\npage-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:none;text-autospace:\r\nnone\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe\r\nmitigation sentencing does not hinge upon any single theory of punishment.\r\nThere are several facts and circumstances to necessitate mitigation consensus\r\nand constitute umpteen features of rehabilitative potential. Despite certain\r\nlimitation, various mitigating factors, supported by all these sources, have\r\nevolved over a period of time through judicial interpretations and are\r\ngenerally applicable to the sentencing laws. Even the U.S. Sentencing\r\nCommission considered such mitigating grounds as appropriate for imposing a lesser\r\nsentence than the one ordinarily prescribed.\u003csup\u003e33\u003c/sup\u003e The imperfect defence\r\ni.e. duress, provocation and diminished capacity have been esteemed as valid\r\ndefences for the mitigation and often find support for decreased punishment.\u003csup\u003e34\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nVictim\u0027s provocation can be termed as his willing participation in the\r\noccurrence. The role contributed by others to induce and facilitate the crime,\r\nthe defendant\u0027s role as accomplice only rather than actual perpetrator, consent\r\nto the commission of the crime by the victim or subjecting the defendant or his\r\nfamily to physical, psychological or sexual abuse amounting to induce the\r\ndefendant to criminal conduct, warrant mitigation as a result of prospective\r\ngreater rehabilitating potential of the offender. The sentencing guidelines will\r\nassign mitigating role to the offender for reduction of punishment in these\r\nsituations.\u003csup\u003e35\u003c/sup\u003e The punishment can only deal with a few symptoms of\r\nthe social problems and cannot remedy all the social pathologies.\u003csup\u003e36\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nMany treat compensation to the victim by the defendant or imprisonment\r\ninterfering with ability of defendant to compensate; as mitigating consensus.\u003csup\u003e37\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nThe role of the defendant to cause relatively lesser damage than the others\r\nalso finds popular support for the lower penalty.\u003csup\u003e38\u003c/sup\u003e A physical or\r\nmental condition, age or diminished ability often refer to the mens rea\r\nquestion in terms of planning or anticipated harm by the defendant for reducing\r\nthe culpability. When there appears no likely recurrence of an aberrant conduct\r\nof a criminal conduct or there is acceptance with sincere remorseful and\r\napologetic overture on part of the defendant, the sentencing guidance will\r\nfacilitate mitigation under rehabilitating scenario. The punishment resulting\r\ninto serious hardship i.e. medical conditions to the defendant or the family\r\ncan also be a factor for sentence reduction. The defendant\u0027s urge for care of\r\nher family tends to militate against any further persistence of culpability in\r\nhim. For example, a woman,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebeing\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eonly\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ebread\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ewinner\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eof\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eher\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003echildren, \u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \u003c/span\u003econvicted\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003estealing 1000 GBP in four\r\nmonths from place of her employment in an accountancy firm, if sentenced for a\r\nlonger period of prison, the sufferings of her family shall be exceptional and\r\nthe family responsibility should be treated as mitigation. However, in the\r\nabsence of such exceptional circumstances, the court may not be inclined to\r\ntreat such family responsibility\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eas\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emitigating\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003epremise\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ewhile\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003edefendant\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003efaced\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esuch\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ea charge of gross breach of trust. Likewise,\r\na defendant accepting\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecommunity service\r\nwith a pledge to rehabilitate himself, may benefit from the mitigation theory\r\nwith a treatable health problem stemming from drugs, and might be given a\r\nchance to become a responsible person. Any imprisonment may not tend to reform\r\nthe conduct of a culprit but a fear of sentence may help him rehabilitate\r\nhimself which will also be a favour to the society in general. Succinctly, the\r\nmitigating approach for rehabilitating potential is not the result of any\r\nsingle theory of punishment but is formulated on the basis of both the\r\nretributivism and utilitarianism.\u003csup\u003e39\u003c/sup\u003e However, some of the mitigating\r\nfactors for rehabilitating potential have no relevance with such theories. A\r\nstrong consensus for treating a useful example of compensation to the victim as\r\nmitigation has no bearing on retributivism\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eor\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eutilitarianism.\u003csup\u003e40\u003c/sup\u003e\r\nSimilarly,\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elesser\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003epunishment\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eon\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eaccount\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eof hardship to the defendant and her family\r\nor the premise of no recidivism prospect, have no nexus with these theories.\r\nThe motivation for mitigating sentencing does not turn upon the goals of\r\nimposing penalty or preventing crime\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003erather\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eits\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003elofty\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eaim\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003egoes\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efar\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ebeyond\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003efor\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eminimising\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ethe\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eadverse\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eeffects of such punishment on the defendant\r\nas well as the others, however, it has inextricable relevance with the criminal\r\njustice systems across the globe.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal align=center style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:center;\r\nmso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;mso-layout-grid-align:none;\r\ntext-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cb\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003eConclusion\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003cp class=MsoNormal style=\u0027margin-bottom:8.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:\r\n.2in;mso-pagination:none;page-break-after:avoid;tab-stops:.5in;mso-layout-grid-align:\r\nnone;text-autospace:none\u0027\u003e\u003cspan style=\u0027letter-spacing:.2pt\u0027\u003e\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-tab-count:1\u0027\u003e       \u003c/span\u003eThe afore-referred observations inspire\r\nan unflinching and irresistible motivation that those responsible for\r\ninitiating prosecutions, defending the criminal charges, formulating sentencing\r\nguidelines, administering justice, and enacting statutory provisions should not\r\nonly be guided by the theories of punishment rather their focus must also\r\nextend beyond to the rehabilitating features of mitigating sentencing inasmuch\r\nas such a holistic approach to prioritize the need of mitigation strategies is\r\nas important as is imperative to release an innocent. Any scepticism to achieve\r\nthe goal of analytical reduction of sentence with rehabilitating prospects may\r\nthwart the courts to allay the sufferings of others i.e. family and friends,\r\nand also may deprive the offender of an opportunity to reform himself for the\r\nwell being of himself as well as those all he is concerned about. The\r\nrestoration of sentencing discretion to the judges must also be accompanied by\r\na new orientation for struggle to use their power in order to enforce the\r\nmitigation for its optimum rehabilitating potential. A decision to mitigate\r\nsentence not only serves the purposes of retributivism i.e. imposing punishment,\r\nbut also that of utilitarianism i.e. preventing the crimes; in additions to\r\nminimising far reaching implications on the lives of third parties. The\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003esentencing\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003erules must set forth a fair\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eand\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ejust\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ecriterion\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eorder\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eto\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003eachieve the purpose of\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003eexplanatory\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003emitigating sentencing\u003cspan\r\nstyle=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e  \u003c/span\u003ein\u003cspan style=\u0027mso-spacerun:yes\u0027\u003e \r\n\u003c/span\u003ekeeping with a rehabilitating potential and to do away with the\r\ndivergent expositions of punishments in various global jurisdictions of the\r\ncriminal justice system.\u003co:p\u003e\u003c/o:p\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/div\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/body\u003e\r\n\r\n\u003c/html\u003e\r\n"