From Courtroom to Correctional Services: How Judges and Correctional Officers Exercise Discretion in Sentencing and Penal Administration

• In Event: Cumulative (Dis)advantage, (Dis)trust, and Sanctioning Disparities 1: Insights from Europe and the United States

Abstract

The increasing use of alternative sanctions in Norway, particularly community service and electronic monitoring, highlights the significant role of discretion in both judicial sentencing and correctional decision-making. Both measures require that the purpose of punishment does not contradict the chosen mode of execution. This condition inherently grants discretionary power, which may challenge the principle of equal treatment and lead to inconsistent outcomes.
In practice, application varies considerably. In TOSL-2024-19542, the court rejected community service for a defendant convicted of assault, despite acknowledging provocation from the victim. The defendant struck the victim multiple times in the face, including with a clenched fist. The sentence was set to 36 days of imprisonment. In contrast, in THALD-2016-208833, two young offenders received community service after an assault where the victim was struck three times in the face, including twice with a clenched fist, resulting in a concussion and four days of sick leave. These cases illustrate how judicial discretion leads to different sentencing outcomes, even for comparable offenses.
This presentation examines how these rules are applied in courts and practiced within the public administration, focusing on the extent to which judicial and correctional discretion align with legal principles and promote consistency. The identified discrepancies raise critical questions about the interpretation and practical application of alternative sanctions, particularly in relation to the principle of equal treatment, transparency, and legal safeguards.

Authors

• Henriette Tøssebro, University of Bergen

• Kelly Solem-Young, University of Bergen