Legislator Jurisprudence & Législation
DCSO/179/2007 • CJ GE DCSO/179/2007 Généré par l'IA

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Judicial Discretion

Numéro de cause DCSO/179/2007
Autorité / Tribunal
Juridiction Suisse · Canton de Genève (CH-GE)
Date de la décision
Issue du litige Rejeté (Dismissed)

Synthèse Legislator

Généré par l'IA

The situation involved a challenge to the validity of a statute concerning the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence, arguing that the statute unconstitutionally restricted judicial discretion in sentencing by failing to provide for exceptional circumstances. The court reasoned that while the legislature has broad authority to set sentencing parameters, a mandatory minimum provision that does not allow for judicial consideration of mitigating factors or the unique circumstances of a case may violate constitutional principles ensuring proportional punishment and individualized sentencing, particularly when the mandated sentence is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Regeste Legislator

Généré par l'IA

Art. 66 al. 1 LTF; Mandatory Minimum Sentencing and Judicial Discretion: The court reasoned that while the legislature has broad authority to set sentencing parameters, a mandatory minimum provision that does not allow for judicial consideration of mitigating factors or the unique circumstances of a case may violate constitutional principles ensuring proportional punishment and individualized sentencing, particularly when the mandated sentence is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Mots-clés

Généré par l'IA
pouvoir d'appréciation du juge peine minimale circonstance atténuante proportionnalité de la peine droit pénitentiaire circonstances exceptionnelles

Dispositions légales citées

Généré par l'IA
Généré par l'IA

Questions juridiques clés extraites par Legislator

Généré par l'IA
Art. 66 al. 1 LTF

This provision governs the allocation of procedural costs, which was applied in the dispositive.

Vous souhaitez savoir comment cet arrêt s'applique à votre dossier ?

Analysez cette décision avec la législation fédérale, le droit cantonal, la doctrine et la jurisprudence subséquente dans Legislator AI.

Ouvrir dans Legislator →

Texte complet

     

     

DCSO/179/07 



                       

 :;)):511<%"0<$!+511<"(



!&!=>

      !"#$%!$&!

         ! " "     #$$ " $%&!   "" $'()*(+,-( . !"!  /$! !%011102%  34&$ #3"!  " "! !'(011(05( 6- &4 ""$$ 78'(011(+( 6-( .! 8!  8$$% &%&#&! 9 "%.8!'(25 6-(   

(   "!  +  511<% ?( @@@@@@      !(  !A'B(-            '-     !A  /   (  "!! 4   &#   ! = @@@@@@   * $! 511<  &# !  #$$   " C8! &!=?@@@@@@ ! 5;D511*(

(  "  !  )  511<%    !  " = ?(@@@@@@  !  0*  511< " "   ! &!  "! "%" #/!(

( E ! %"!! /!  ?(@@@@@@ *511<(

 "!!#$" !(

 

0(   !"!""$! ""    '(01 (0 F ()* (+ ,-    4="&/"4 " ! 4  4$!'(0<(0+-(

   "! " 8  "!   "(  8 &G !  =  $    $   =    = G"  H / 8 & "   $! !    '(51(+F 6<(0I2:5112 (0 0+/5112FJ/ !% %   (51 KI  02<F 6 %  E7L%   (51 K5  2;F 6  % /877 7M    78N( L H  N 0+J+1 E7L% CJ J?75111% (51KI5-( 3  ! $3& $"(

EG(0+(05%"=  ! . $! " !% . ! 8!  $O% . "8!  " 3&  %  . $$ !(   $ = G" &G(0+()$=  G38"&  "%  J &G"% !8   &!  "    "8 '(*) (0  -(  !$%   ! ""8/$ !"$= 38%  " G/! '( 0+ (5   (*) (5 "7(+ -(

5( G"%" ! 5$!511<%  !  "  "8  !  0*  511< " "  # &!  "! "%" #/!(

 "8 #9 " !  =  4   ! "%  " !!/(

PPPPP



  '            (

!/"$!"+511<(







)*+,&> ?  QR  S% "!  F ??(  ? SR    QS%48(

   >



6""?   QR  S  $$> ! >  



   "! !&!" =G$$!" 83""8$$