Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://repository.seku.ac.ke/handle/123456789/8196
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSouth Eastern Kenya University-
dc.date.accessioned2025-11-28T18:06:34Z-
dc.date.available2025-11-28T18:06:34Z-
dc.date.issued2025-10-
dc.identifier.citationNational Council for Law Reporting, Volume 1, Issue 1, Date October 2025en_US
dc.identifier.isbn978-9914-50-856-7-
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.seku.ac.ke/xmlui/handle/123456789/8196-
dc.description.abstractThe principle of proportionality in sentencing demands that punishment corresponds to both the gravity of the offence and the moral culpability of the offender. In Kenya, this principle has gained renewed constitutional significance following the landmark Supreme Court decision in Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v Republic [2017] eKLR, which declared the mandatory death sentence in murder cases unconstitutional. Despite this jurisprudential milestone, the practical application of proportionality in capital sentencing remains inconsistent and underdeveloped. Post-Muruatetu decisions reveal a lack of uniform standards for assessing aggravating and mitigating factors, leading to disparities in sentencing outcomes across similar cases.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherNational Council for Law Reportingen_US
dc.titleSouth Eastern Kenya University Law Review Journalen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Appears in Collections:School of Law

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
SEKU_ Laws Review Journal_Vol.1_Issue1_2025.pdfFull text1.89 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.