ABSTRACT
Upon the conviction of an accused person by a judge or a magistrate, the next stage in a criminal trial is sentencing, which is the imposition of a particular disposition measure on the convict, whether custodial or non-custodial. Sentencing objectives abound to serve as the rationales for specific sentences and a judge or magistrate is expected to identify a specific objective that has influenced his choice of sentence. Besides, there are also sentencing principles and rules which a judge or magistrate is expected to evaluate and adhere to before passing his sentence, just as the judge or magistrate is expected to predicate the exercise of his judicial discretion on certain aggravating or mitigating factors inter alia. However, many sentences have been found to be irrational, unfounded and unjust, due to the fact that the judge or magistrate ignored to consider any of the indicated factors and objectives before arriving at a decision on sentencing, thereby failing to state the reason for the sentence. This paper therefore conducts a critical evaluation of the observance of the objectives and principles of sentencing and interrogates whether such observance enhances criminal justice dispensation. The paper appraises the sentencing objectives of deterrence, retribution, elimination/incapacitation and reformation/rehabilitation. We also embarked on the appraisal of the rules/principles of sentencing, together with the various interventions in form of sentencing guidelines and practice directions. The author thereafter proffered some recommendations towards the improvement of Nigeria’s sentencing practices and the actualization of effective criminal justice dispensation in Nigeria.
Keywords: Sentencing, Retribution, Deterrence, Rehabilitation