No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Suspended Sentence: Israel's Experience*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2016
Extract
In the suspended sentence, or as it is sometimes called, the conditional sentence, the defendant does not serve a sentence upon conviction. Service of sentence is postponed for a period of time. Whether the defendant actually will serve any sentence depends upon whether he abides by the conditions of postponement or suspension. Typically, the condition is that he shall refrain from committing additional crimes, sometimes without limitation, sometimes of a specified class.
There exists in the literature considerable debate over the value of the suspended sentence as a penal device, with the harshest criticsm coming from the Anglo-Saxon countries which share a strong preference for probation. Israel stands somewhere between these poles. While the legal tradition bequeathed her upon emerging into independence was Anglo-Saxon, she has, ever since, sought wisdom in other traditions as well, with the result that Israeli legislation has on occasion produced interesting and unique devices. The suspended sentence is, in my view, a case in point, worthy of being made known to a wider audience.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1979
References
1 See generally Ancel, M., Suspended Sentence (1971).Google Scholar
2 Kassir v. State of Israel (1971) (I) 25 P.D. 281.
3 See Andenaes, J., Punishment and Deterrence (1974).Google Scholar
4 This is the model obtaining in England. Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, §§ 22–23.
5 The history of the suspended sentence is surveyed in M. Ancel, supra n. 1, at 1–20, 38–41.
6 See, e.g., Rubin, S., The Law of Criminal Correction (3rd ed., 1973) 179–202Google Scholar, American Law Institute, Model Penal Code § 301Google Scholar; American Bar Association, Minimum Standards Relating to Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures (1968) 71–72.Google Scholar
7 See, e.g., Title 18, United States Code § 3651.
8 S. Rubin, supra n. 6.
9 Both studies may be found in Great Britain Home Office, Report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders: Alternatives to Short Term Imprisonment (1957) (SBN 11–3400).Google Scholar
10 Criminal Justice Act 1967, §§ 39–42.
11 Saled, , “Suspended Sentence” (1970) 70 Current Legal Problems 71.Google Scholar
12 See Andenaes, J., Punishment and Deterrence (1974) 161.Google Scholar
13 E.g., Walker, N., Crimes, Court and Figures (1971) 150–51Google Scholar; Devlin, K., Sentencing Offenders in Magistrates' Courts (1970) 143Google Scholar; “Suspended Sentence: A Review” (1977) 141 Justice of the Peace Notes 209.
14 Compare for example, R. v. Metcalf [1971] Crim. L. R. 112 with R. v. Munday, 56 Cr. App. R. 220 (1971).
15 Penal Law Revision (Modes of Punishment) Law (1954) 8 L.S.I. 206, sec. 18 at p. 208.
16 Sebba, , “Penal Reform and Court Practice. The Case of the Suspended Sentence” in Studies in Criminology (21 Scripta Hierosolymitana, Jerusalem, 1969) 133.Google Scholar
17 Symposium, , Modes of Punishment in Israel (Jerusalem, Institute of Criminology, 1963, in Hebrew).Google Scholar
18 Penal Law Amendment (Modes of Punishment) (Amendment No. 5) Law (1963) 17 L.S.I. 96, sec. 7 at p. 101.
19 Ben David v. State of Israel (1973) (I) 27 P.D. 671.
20 Penal Law, 1977, sec. 56(b).
21 State of Israel v. Palach (1971) (I) 25 P.D. 589.
22 Ibid.
23 Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, §§ 26–27.
24 See Zimring, F. and Hawkins, G., Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control (1973).Google Scholar