This question involves writing a critical analysis of .
the Hebenton and Pease paper from the Bull and Carson .
handbook. Taken into consideration will be how their .
work throws light on the sentences passed by judges in .
criminal cases. Research in this area is often difficult .
because the researcher can quite easily get committed for .
an offence. However, research into the attitudes, .
beliefs and reasoning of judges does not always give an .
accurate picture of the ways in which they pass .
sentences. Thus, in a way sentencing is regarded as a .
kind of mystery, characterised by a strong formalism .
which concerns outward appearance and structure. There .
are numerous factors which play an important role in .
influencing a judges decision regarding criminal cases. .
The aspects which will be discussed here are: two .
justifications of punishment; retributivism (wholly .
deserved by offender) and reductivism (preventative .
consequences of sentences), crime seriousness and .
sentence length, two approaches to explain judges .
decisions; analytical (attempt to extract factors which .
bear upon the case) and synthetic (concerning the .
translation of case seriousness into sentence severity) .
and "The Billam Guideline Judgement." These aspects will .
be discussed in order to present an insight into the .
"mental mixer of sentencing" given by a judge.
In light of sentences passed by judges in criminal .
cases it is necessary to consider two justifications of .
punishment which are taken into account by the judge: .
crime retributivism and crime reductivism. At present .
judges pass sentences by way of retribution which is .
defended by the fact that, "you have to be cruel to be .
kind." Thus, by giving offenders rather long sentences .
of imprisonment it is hoped that they will eventually .
"learn their lesson" that crime does not pay. The .
world-wide aim for the future involves moving towards a .
reductivism form of punishment. According to .