NCJ Number
100958
Journal
Buffalo Law Review Volume: 32 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1983) Pages: 89-125
Date Published
1983
Length
37 pages
Annotation
In early 19th-century England, Whig reformers aimed at mitigating the severity of statutory punishments and reducing judicial discretion so as to increase lower class and middle-class perceptions that the law is just.
Abstract
The debate between the Whigs and the Tories regarding law reform in the early 19th century centered on the law's broad application of capital punishment for both violent and property crimes. The Whigs argued for graduated sentences tailored to the severity of offenses, so as to project the image of law that is applied fairly, impersonally, and impartially. Eighteenth-century criminal justice, supported by the Tories, was characterized by generally harsh sentence possibilities that could be mitigated by judicial discretion and royal pardons. In arguing against reform, Tories maintained that the state's show of mercy depended upon judicial discretion to tailor sentences to the particular circumstances of a case and offender characteristics. Whigs also wanted to grant defense counsel the right to address juries with summary statements. Tories viewed this proposal as an infringement upon the judge's role as friend and advocate for the accused. 165 footnotes.