Before Amendment 113 to the Penal Law, sentencing was largely arbitrary; two defendants who committed similar offenses could receive completely different punishments, depending on the judge hearing the case.
What changed in 2012?
Before Amendment 113 to the Penal Law, sentencing was largely arbitrary; two defendants who committed similar offenses could receive completely different sentences, depending on the judge hearing the case. Amendment 113 changed this fundamentally. It added Section Aleph 1 to the law, "Structuring Judicial Discretion in Sentencing," and created a binding framework according to which every judge must act when imposing a sentence.
The guiding principle established: an appropriate relationship between the severity of the criminal act and the degree of the defendant's guilt, and the type and extent of the sentence to be imposed on him.
Considerations related to the commission of the offense
The court examines the act itself through several parameters: whether there was prior planning; what the defendant's relative part was and to what extent he was influenced by others; the damage actually caused compared with the damage that was expected; the reasons that led to the commission; whether the defendant was capable of understanding the wrongfulness of the act; whether he could have avoided it and the degree of his control; mental distress resulting from the victim's abuse of the defendant; cruelty, violence, and abuse of the victim; and abuse of power or status.
Considerations not directly related to the commission of the offense
In addition to the act itself, the court considers the defendant's personal circumstances: the harm that the conviction and sentence will cause him and his family; taking responsibility and rehabilitation; actions taken to compensate for the damage caused; cooperation with law enforcement authorities; contribution to society and positive conduct; difficult life circumstances that had an impact; the passage of time since the commission of the offense; and a criminal record or its absence.
An important point: denying guilt and conducting a full trial will not be held against the defendant.
The three stages of sentencing
First stage, determining the appropriate sentencing range: the court determines a range of sentences appropriate to the offense and its circumstances, taking into account the social value that was harmed and the sentencing policy customary in similar offenses.
Second stage, determining the specific sentence within the range: according to the defendant's personal circumstances, age, financial situation, taking responsibility, effect on the family, and more.
Third stage, deviation from the range: the court may depart from the established range, downward for reasons of rehabilitation, and upward for the purpose of protecting public safety.
Why is representation at the sentencing stage critical?
Knowing the structure of judicial discretion is not a theoretical matter. A defense attorney who knows it thoroughly understands: which arguments belong to which category; which evidence and documents strengthen each argument; how to organize the argument before the court in a way that materially affects the defendant's placement within the sentencing range; and when it is possible to argue for a downward deviation from the range.
Representation that is not built on a deep understanding of the structuring principle may miss decisive arguments and lead to a more severe sentence than could have been achieved.
Legal representation at the sentencing stage
The sentencing stage is not a formality; it is sometimes the stage at which the fate of years is decided. Israel Arama, a former member of the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office, has in-depth knowledge of the structuring principle and the way the courts apply it in practice. Focused, evidence-based representation at this stage is what sometimes determines the difference between sentences. Contact us for an initial consultation with no obligation.
What changed in 2012?
Before Amendment 113 to the Penal Law, sentencing was largely arbitrary; two defendants who committed similar offenses could receive completely different sentences, depending on the judge hearing the case. Amendment 113 changed this fundamentally. It added Section Aleph 1 to the law, "Structuring Judicial Discretion in Sentencing," and created a binding framework according to which every judge must act when imposing a sentence. The guiding principle established: an appropriate relationship between the severity of the criminal act and the degree of the defendant's guilt, and the type and extent of the sentence to be imposed on him.
Considerations related to the commission of the offense — what is important to know?
The court examines the act itself through several parameters: whether there was prior planning; what the defendant's relative part was and to what extent he was influenced by others; the damage actually caused compared with the damage that was expected; the reasons that led to the commission; whether the defendant was capable of understanding the wrongfulness of the act; whether he could have avoided it and the degree of his control; mental distress resulting from the victim's abuse of the defendant; cruelty, violence, and abuse of the victim; and abuse of power or status.
The three stages of sentencing — what is important to know?
First stage, determining the appropriate sentencing range: the court determines a range of sentences appropriate to the offense and its circumstances, taking into account the social value that was harmed and the sentencing policy customary in similar offenses. Second stage, determining the specific sentence within the range: according to the defendant's personal circumstances, age, financial situation, taking responsibility, effect on the family, and more. Third stage, deviation from the range: the court may depart from the established range, downward for reasons of rehabilitation, and upward for the purpose of protecting public safety.
Why is representation at the sentencing stage critical?
Knowing the structure of judicial discretion is not a theoretical matter. A defense attorney who knows it thoroughly understands: which arguments belong to which category; which evidence and documents strengthen each argument; how to organize the argument before the court in a way that materially affects the defendant's placement within the sentencing range; and when it is possible to argue for a downward deviation from the range. Representation that is not built on a deep understanding of the structuring principle may miss decisive arguments and lead to a more severe sentence than could have been achieved.
This information is for initial orientation about the service and contact process. It is not individual legal advice.
Initial call No obligation