We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The chapter addresses the penal regime of international criminal jurisdictions, focusing primarily on the law and practice of the UN ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court (ICC). It sets out the categories of penalties which may be imposed by international criminal courts and tribunals for the core crimes and the offences against the administration of justice. The chapter sets out the commonly-adduced general purposes for punishing perpetrators of international crimes (retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.) and addresses the extent to which the punishment rationales acknowledged at the national level remain valid within the international penal regime. It analyses the international jurisdictions’ sentencing principles and practice, in particular the need for the individualization of penalties while ensuring consistency in sentencing and the relative weight accorded to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence. The chapter also surveys the procedures at sentencing, in particular the option of following the unified or bifurcated process for the determination of the guilt or innocence and, if appropriate, the sentence, as well as the arrangements adopted for pardon, early release (commutation) and review of sentences.
The Supreme Court issued a plurality opinion holding that Ehrlich Anthony Coker’s sentence of death for the rape of an adult woman was “grossly disproportionate and excessive punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Unlike other cases from the era, which focused on the procedures for administering capital punishment, the Court found the death penalty excessive for the crime of rape regardless of the procedures used to reach that determination. Notably, an amicus brief authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, outlining the feminist case against applying the death penalty in cases of rape, did not serve as the basis for the plurality’s reasoning. Instead, the Court adopted rationales that many consider to be patriarchal and patronizing toward women.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.