NCJ Number
139663
Journal
Indian Journal of Criminology Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Dated: (July 1992) Pages: 99-106
Date Published
1992
Length
8 pages
Annotation
This study examines the implementation of the provision of India's Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which mandates a presentence hearing separated from the trial in which a defendant is convicted.
Abstract
The intent of such a provision is that the convicted offender have the opportunity to present to the sentencing judge those aspects of the offender's background and character which may impact the nature of the sentence imposed. There is evidence, however, that judges have not grasped the intent of this provision and are treating it in a perfunctory or indifferent manner. Judges often schedule the presentence hearing on the same day as the conviction, such that defense attorneys and the defendant have insufficient opportunity to develop a thorough presentation relevant to sentencing. There are also indications that judges do not take sufficient time after the hearing to consider all the factors relevant to sentencing, since many sentencing decisions are rendered almost immediately after the hearing. Another difficulty related to compliance with the intent of the presentence hearing is mandatory sentences. Mandatory sentences give no consideration to mitigating factors related to sentencing; whereas, the intent of the presentence hearing is to consider factors that bear upon sentencing. Mandatory sentencing thus tends to undermine the purpose of the presentence hearing. It is incumbent on each judge to make every effort to enter the presentence hearing with an open mind and an intent to take into account all information and arguments presented in that hearing in making the sentencing decision. 13 notes and 5 references