Articulating Sentencing Guidelines to Structure Judicial Sentencing Discretion in Nigeria

Abstract

The general purpose of sentencing is to punish or correct offenders and promote respect for the law in order to maintain a just, peaceful and safe society as well promote initiatives to prevent crimes. Penal laws usually provide the minimum and maximum punishment and it is the duty of the court to impose the right quality and quantum of sentence within the statutory limits to achieve the objective of sentencing in criminal trial. This duty appears simple, however, it is ironically the most incoherent and
extremely difficult task in criminal justice delivery. This is owing to the facts that, the court at the stage of sentencing is often confronted with a serious decision of policy to decide which among the conflicting objectives of sentencing that is applicable to the particular facts of a case, before proceeding to impose the right sentence that can serve the real essence of justice. This paper, employing doctrinal research methodology in making a comparative analysis of sentencing guidelines in Nigeria, the
United Kingdom and the United States found that, trial judges in Nigeria wield near absolute discretion at the stage of sentencing, and this individualised approach to justice often lead to the imposition of too lenient sentences inadequate to deter abhorrent behaviours or lead to the award of inconsistent sentences to different offenders who committed the same or similar offences in almost the same circumstances. To ensure predictability of punishment and promote uniformity and transparency in sentencing, it is recommended that legislative measures be employed to structure judicial discretion through comprehensive sentencing guidelines. Also, the training of judges in sentencing procedure including alternatives to imprisonment and their application in appropriate circumstances was recommended.