The Judge’s Authority in Assessing Criminal Penalties and Forming His Inner Conviction

Abstract

A judicial judgment is a document of justice. Although the judge enjoys discretionary authority in carrying out procedural or judicial acts, this does not mean that his authority is absolute in issuing whatever judgments he wishes. Rather, the judge exercises this authority within a specific framework, because he always seeks to achieve justice, and his authority is constrained by the achievement of this objective. The discretionary authority granted by law to the judge constitutes an exception to the general rule that a judgment is bound by the provisions of the law, and that the law leaves the judge a certain degree of freedom to achieve justice by choosing the action that is consistent with the circumstances of the case or by determining the solution he deems appropriate for the dispute. The function of the judge is therefore to adjudicate in accordance with the law, and his authority is limited by the necessity of achieving the objectives of the law. What are the different systems of judicial conviction? What are the elements of criminal judicial certainty? What are the limits of the judge’s authority in assessing criminal penalties? And what are the rules governing the formation of his inner conviction? These are the questions that we shall seek to examine in detail in the following article, by dividing it into three sections. In the first section, we address the judge’s authority in assessing criminal penalties; in the second, we examine inner conviction and the elements of judicial certainty in criminal matters; while in the third section, we present the restrictions imposed on the judge’s freedom of proof in criminal matters and the limits of his authority in forming his inner conviction.