Sentencing Procedure

doi:10.1017/9781009038126.010

10 - Sentencing Procedure

Comparing the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Approaches

from Part III - Criminal Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 July 2025

Julian Roberts and

Anneke Petzsche

Edited by

Kai Ambos ,

Julian Roberts and

Kai Ambos: Affiliation:
Georg August Universität Göttingen
Antony Duff: Affiliation:
University of Stirling
Alexander Heinze: Affiliation:
University of Bremen
Julian Roberts: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Thomas Weigend: Affiliation:
University of Köln

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter explores the single most important difference between Anglo-American and German/Continental trial procedures: bifurcation vs. unification. Should a court determine sentence at the same time as it adjudicates verdict? Or should the criminal process be divided, with sentencing taking place after conviction, in a separate ‘penalty phase’ of the criminal process? Common law (adversarial) jurisdictions take the bifurcated approach, while in civil law (inquisitorial) systems the sentencing decision is part and parcel of the decision to convict or acquit. The chapter investigates the merits of both approaches.

Comparing the two approaches to sentencing may yield important insights. Although neither system is likely to abandon its chosen methodology in favour of the alternative, there may be elements of each which can be adopted with a view to overcoming any structural deficiencies.

Keywords

bifurcation unification mitigating and aggravating factors prior convictions bias pre-sentence report community impact statement speedy trial just sentence

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
Volume III
, pp. 353 - 394

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009038126.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Albrecht, H.-J., ‘Sentencing in the Federal Republic of Germany’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 7 (1995), 305–7.Google Scholar

Ambos, K., Treatise on International Criminal Law, Vol. III: International Criminal Procedure, 2nd edn, Oxford University Press (2025).Google Scholar

Ascoli, S., Sentencing in International Criminal Law, Hart (2011).Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. and Kelly, R., Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 7th edn, Hart Bloomsbury (2021).Google Scholar

Biland-Zimmermann, B., Das Schuldinterlokut in der Hauptverhandlung, Juris (1975).Google Scholar

Blau, G., ‘Die Teilung des Strafverfahrens in zwei Abschnitte. Schuldspruch und Strafausspruch’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 81 (1969), 31–48.Google Scholar

Bohlander, M., ‘Sentencing and Enforcement: An Overview’, in Principles of German Criminal Procedure, Hart (2021), 175–221.Google Scholar

Borden, R., ‘Jury Discretion and the Unitary Trial Procedure in Capital Cases’, Arkansas Law Review, 26 (1972), 33–62.Google Scholar

Carroll, J., ‘The Defense Lawyer’s Role in the Sentencing Process: You’ve Got to Accentuate the Positive and Eliminate the Negative’, Mercer Law Review, 37 (1986), 981–1004.Google Scholar

Dahs, H., ‘Fortschrittliches Strafrecht in rückständigem Strafverfahren. Zur Dringlichkeit einer Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung durch ein “Schuldinterlokut”’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, [1970], 1705–12.Google Scholar

Damaska, M., ‘Propensity Evidence in Continental Legal Systems’, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 70 (1994), 55–67.Google Scholar

Dölling, D., Die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung: Eine Erprobung vor Einzelrichtern und Schöffengerichten, Kriminologische Studien, 28, Schwartz (1978).Google Scholar

Douglass, J., ‘Confronting Death: Sixth Amendment Rights at Capital Hearing’, Columbia Law Review, 10 (2005), 1967–2028.Google Scholar

Dugas, M., ‘Committing to Justice: The Case for Impact of Race and Culture Assessments in Sentencing African Canadian Offenders’, Dalhousie Law Journal, 43 (2020), 103–58.Google Scholar

Epps, D. and Ortman, W., ‘The Informed Jury’, Vanderbilt Law Review, 75 (2022), 823–90.Google Scholar

Expert Commission, ‘Bericht der Expertenkommission zur effektiveren und praxistauglicheren Ausgestaltung des allgemeinen Strafverfahrens und des jugendgerichtlichen Verfahrens’, ed. Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbrauchschutz, October 2015.Google Scholar

Farrington, R., Summary Justice, Matador Books (2016).Google Scholar

Fischinger, H., ‘Die Teilung des Strafverfahrens in zwei Abschnitte: Schuldspruch und Strafausspruch’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 81 (1969), 49–60.Google Scholar

Fisher, T., ‘Constitutionalism and the Criminal Law: Rethinking Criminal Trial Bifurcation’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 61 (2011), 811–43.CrossRef Google Scholar

Frase, R., Sentencing in Germany and in the United States: Comparing Äpfel with Apples, Iuscrim edn, Research in brief, 7, Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Criminal Law (2001).Google Scholar

Frase, R. and Roberts, J. V., Paying for the Past: Prior Record Enhancements in the US Sentencing Guidelines, Oxford University Press (2019).Google Scholar

Fyfe, S. and Heinze, A., ‘Prosecutorial Discretion’, in Ambos, K., Weigend, T., Duff, A. et al. (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Anglo-German Dialogues, Cambridge University Press (2022), Vol. II, 173–220.Google Scholar

Gormley, J., Roberts, J. V., Bild, J. et al., Sentence Reductions for a Guilty Plea: A Review of Policy, Practice and Research, Sentencing Academy (2020).Google Scholar

Hauri, M. and Venetz, P., ‘Art. 342’, in Niggli, M. A., Heer, M. and Wiprächtiger, H. (eds.), Basler Kommentar, 2nd edn, Helbing Lichtenhahn (2014).Google Scholar

Heckner, W., Die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung nach Schuld- und Reaktionsfrage (Schuldinterlokut): Vorschlag einer Gesetzesnovelle zum Strafverfahrensrecht, G. Bauknecht (1973).Google Scholar

Heine, S., ‘Zur Verwertbarkeit von Aussagen im Ausland möglicherweise gefolterter Zeugen Besprechung der El Haski-Entscheidung des EGMR– Urteil vom 25. 9. 2012 – 649/08 (El Haski v. Belgien)’, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, [2013], 680–3.Google Scholar

Heinitz, E., ‘Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung’, in Becker, W. and Schnorr von Carolsfeld, L. (eds.), Sein und Werden im Recht. Festgabe für Ulrich von Lübtow zum 70. Geburtstag, Duncker & Humblot (1970), 835–45.Google Scholar

Heinze, A. and Fyfe, S., ‘The Role of the Prosecutor’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Issues in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 343–88.Google Scholar

Herrmann, J., Die Reform der deutschen Hauptverhandlung nach dem Vorbild des anglo-amerikanischen Strafverfahrens, Ludwig Röhrscheid Verlag (1971).Google Scholar

Hodgson, J. and Soubise, L., ‘Understanding the Sentencing Process in France’, Crime & Justice, 45 (2016), 221–65.10.1086/685538CrossRef Google Scholar

Hörnle, T., ‘Comparative Assessment of Sentencing Laws, Practices, and Trends’, in Brown, D. K., Turner, J. I. and Weisser, B. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford University Press (2019), 887–910.Google Scholar

Hörnle, T. ‘Zur Lage der Strafzumessung in Deutschland’, Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht, (2019), 282–95.Google Scholar

Horovitz, A., ‘The Emergence of Sentencing Hearings’, Punishment & Society, 9 (2007), 271–99.10.1177/1462474507077495CrossRef Google Scholar

Jeffries, S. and Stenning, P., ‘Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: Law, Policy, and Practice in Three Countries’, Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 56 (2014), 447–94.Google Scholar

Jung, H. ‘Zur Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung. Eine grundsätzliche Positionsbestimmung’, in Beisel, H., Verrel, T., Laue, C. et al. (eds.), Die Kriminalwissenschaften als Teil der Humanwissenschaften. Festschrift für Dieter Dölling zum 70. Geburtstag, Nomos (2023), 307–24.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D., Sibony, O. and Sunstein, C., Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, William Collins (2021).Google Scholar

Kern, E., ‘Lehren des Brühneprozesses’, Deutsche Richterzeitung (1962), 353–4.Google Scholar

Kohlrausch, E., ‘Der Londoner Gefängniskongreß 1925’, Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft, 47 (1927), 191–346.Google Scholar

Lutes, N., ‘The Role of Defence Counsel at Sentencing’, in Cole, D. and Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Sentencing in Canada: Essays in Law, Policy and Practice, Irwin Law (2019), 129–52.Google Scholar

O’Malley, T., Sentencing Law and Practice, 3rd edn, Thomson Reuters (2016).Google Scholar

Manson, A., The Law of Sentencing, Irwin Law (2001).Google Scholar

Manson, A., Roberts, J. V., Healy, P. et al. (eds.), Sentencing and Penal Policy in Canada, 3rd edn, Emond Montgomery (2016).Google Scholar

Nestler, C., ‘Sentencing in Germany’, Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 7 (2003), 109–38.Google Scholar

Nisbett, R. and Ross, L., Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment, Lawrence Erlbaum (1980).Google Scholar

Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, 3rd edn, Routledge (2015).Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V., ‘Deferred Sentencing: A Fresh Look at an Old Concept’, Criminal Law Review, 3 (2022), 204–24.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. and Harrendorf, S., ‘The Role of Prior Convictions at Sentencing in Anglo-Saxon Jurisdictions and Germany’, in Ambos, K., Duff, A., Roberts, J. et al. (eds.), Core Issues in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Cambridge University Press (2020), Vol. 1, 261–303.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V. and Reid, A., ‘Aboriginal Incarceration in Canada since 1978: Every Picture Tells the Same Story’, Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 59 (2017), 313–46.Google Scholar

Roberts, J. V., Pina-Sanchez, J. and Marder, I., ‘Individualisation at Sentencing: The Effects of Sentencing Guidelines and “Preferred” Numbers’, Criminal Law Review, 2 (2018), 123–36.Google Scholar

Robinson, G., Pre-Sentence Reports: A Review of Policy, Practice and Research, Sentencing Academy (2022).Google Scholar

Roxin, C., ‘Die Reform der Hauptverhandlung im deutschen Strafprozeß’, in Lüttger, H. (ed.), Probleme der Strafprozeßreform: Berliner Gastvorträge, reprint 2019, De Gruyter (1975), 52–72.Google Scholar

Roxin, C., ‘Welches Gesamtkonzept sollte der Strafprozeßreform zugrundegelegtwerden?’, in Schreiber, H.-L. (ed.), Gesamtreform des Strafverfahrens: Internationales Christian-Broda-Symposion, Luchterhand (1987), 16–24.Google Scholar

Saetveit, K., ‘Beyond Pollard: Applying the Sixth Amendment’s Speedy Trial Right to Sentencing’, Stanford Law Review, 68 (2016), 481–509.Google Scholar

Schäfer, G., Sander, G. M. and van Gemmerer, G., Praxis der Strafzumessung, 6th edn, C. H. Beck (2017).Google Scholar

Schmidt, E., ‘Probleme der Struktur des Strafverfahrens unter rechtsstaatlichen Gesichtspunkten’, Deutsche Richterzeitung (1959), 16–21.Google Scholar

Schmidt-Leichner, E., ‘Deutscher und anglo-amerikanischer Strafprozeß. – Ein Diskussionsbeitrag’, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (1951), 7–10.Google Scholar

Schöch, H. and Schreiber, H.-L., ‘Ist die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung praktikabel? Erfahrungen mit der Erprobung eines informellen Tatinterlokuts’, Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik, 11 (1978), 63–7.Google Scholar

Schroth, K. and Schroth, M., Die Rechte des Verletzten im Strafprozess, 3rd edn, C. F. Müller (2018).Google Scholar

Schunck, B., Die Zweiteilung der Hauptverhandlung. Die Erprobung des informellen Tatinterlokuts bei Strafkammern, Kriminologische Studien, 39, Schwartz (1982).Google Scholar

Sorvatzioti, D., ‘Why Sentencing Needs a Separate Trial in the Continental System’, in Papacharalambous, C. (ed.), The Aims of Punishment: Theoretical, International and Law Comparative Approaches, Sakkoulas Publications (2020), 145–66.Google Scholar

Spencer, S., ‘Evidence of the Defendant’s Bad Character’, in Evidence of Bad Character, Hart (2016), 70–143.Google Scholar

Spohn, C., How Judges Decide, Sage (2002).Google Scholar

Taylor, M., Wasik, M. and Leng, R., Blackstone’s Guide to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, Oxford University Press (2004).Google Scholar

Terblanche, S., A Guide to Sentencing in South Africa, LexisNexis (2016).Google Scholar

Thibaut, J. and Walker, L., Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum (1975).Google Scholar

Thomas, K., ‘Beyond Mitigation: Towards a Theory of Allocution’, Fordham Law Review, 75 (2007), 2641–83.Google Scholar

Turner, J., ‘Implementing Blakely’, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 17 (2004), 1–21.10.1525/fsr.2004.17.2.106CrossRef Google Scholar

Tyler, T., Why People Obey the Law, Princeton University Press (2006).10.1515/9781400828609CrossRef Google Scholar

Ulmen, H., Das Schuldinterlokut. Die Teilung des Strafverfahrens in zwei Abschnitte: Schuldspruch und Strafausspruch, Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Strafprozessreform, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (1973).Google Scholar

Van Koppen, P. and Penrod, S., ‘Adversarial or Inquisitorial: Comparing Systems in Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice’, in Van Koppen, P. and Penrod, S. (eds.), Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice: Psychological Perspectives on Criminal Justice Systems, Kluwer (2003), 347–406.10.1007/978-1-4419-9196-6_20CrossRef Google Scholar

Wasik, M., A Practical Approach to Sentencing, Oxford University Press (2014).Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘Sentencing and Punishment in Germany’, in Tonry, M. and Frase, R. (eds.), Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries, Oxford University Press (2001), 188–221.10.1093/oso/9780195130539.003.0006CrossRef Google Scholar

Weigend, T., ‘The Decay of the Inquisitorial Ideal: Plea Bargaining Invades German Criminal Procedure’, in Jackson, J. D., Langer, M. and Tillers, P. (eds.), Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaska, Hart (2008), 39–64.Google Scholar

Weigend, T. ‘No News Is Good News: Criminal Sentencing in Germany since 2000’, Crime & Justice, 45 (2016), 83–106.10.1086/686041CrossRef Google Scholar

Weigend, T. and Turner, J., ‘The Constitutionality of Negotiated Criminal Judgments in Germany’, German Law Journal, 15 (2014), 81–105.Google Scholar

Whitman, J., ‘Presumption of Innocence or Presumption of Mercy? Weighing Two Western Modes of Justice’, Texas Law Review, 94 (2016), 933–93.Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.1 AA

The PDF of this book complies with version 2.1 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), covering newer accessibility requirements and improved user experiences and achieves the intermediate (AA) level of WCAG compliance, covering a wider range of accessibility requirements.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.

Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.