Sentencing Rationales in Comparative Perspective: A Study of Penal Philosophy in the United States, Chile, and Bangladesh

Abstract

Background: This study analyzes sentencing rationales in the criminal justice systems of the United States, Chile, and Bangladesh as a scientific inquiry in comparative criminal justice, focusing on how differences in legal traditions and sociopolitical contexts influence penal philosophy and sentencing practices.

Objective: The study aims to identify and analyze the impact of retributive, deterrent, rehabilitative, and restorative justice rationales on sentencing frameworks, as well as to examine their implications for sentencing reform.

Methods: The research employs a qualitative, doctrinal, conceptual, and comparative methodology, examining statutory provisions, court judgments, sentencing guidelines, and relevant academic literature.

Results: The study finds that Bangladesh retains a largely deterrence-based sentencing framework shaped by its colonial legal legacy while progressively incorporating reform-oriented approaches; Chile prioritizes rehabilitation and restorative justice in accordance with its civil law tradition and human rights orientation; and the United States emphasizes retribution and deterrence, contributing to a punitive sentencing culture associated with mass incarceration. The research is original in that it provides an analysis of how sentencing rationales influence judicial decision-making and broader conceptions of justice through an integrated comparative analysis of three jurisdictions representing different legal traditions and stages of penal development.

Conclusion: The findings have conceptual and practical value for comparative criminal justice scholarship by providing a framework for designing fairer, context-sensitive, and evidence-based sentencing practices, particularly in Latin American and South Asian legal systems.