Suchergebnisse

The article describes the concept of discretion as one of the central concepts in the science of administrative law, further a parallel between the discretion existing in the government (so-called discretionary powers) and judicial discretion is drawn. Thus, the administrative body is obliged to apply its discretion in order to give the right of discretion and to comply with the statutory limits of discretion, if it is authorized to act in its own discretion. The proper application of the discretion by the administrative body may be re-examined within the framework of pre-trial appeal by the same administrative body or by a higher administrative body. The administrative body or the superior administrative body may, in particular, also assess the appropriateness of decisions and thus make other decisions, even if there is no doubt as to the validity of the original decision. In particular, in the case of pre-trial appeal, it is assumed that a new, independent assessment of the expediency of the actions of the executive body is carried out. In principle, this does not cause any legal problems with respect to the protection of trust, since the claimant itself, through filing a claim, prevents the entry of an administrative act into force, thereby preventing the consequent more difficult annulment. However, this becomes problematic in the case of the administrative court, since the courts, by virtue of the principle of separation of powers, have the right to check only the legality of the actions of the executive power, and not the expediency of its decisions. In this connection, the administrative court process limits discretion to verifying a discretion error only, rather than verifying whether an administrative act or refusal to publish or not to publish an administrative act is unlawful, whether the statutory limits of discretion or discretion have been violated have not been applied in accordance with the purpose of its provision. And a detailed description of the types of discretion and what there are errors of discretion. In conclusion, there are arguments for the existence of a discretion, since there are doubts about the susceptibility of decisions to corruption at its discretion.

When men reflect about government, whether practically or academically, they always turn up, if they think deeply enough, two central problems: first, how to ensure that government shall do what it is supposed to do, and secondly, how to ensure that it shall not do other things. One is the problem of efficiency, the other the problem of control; and around the two is built most, perhaps all, of the so-called science of politics. At some periods the need for control seems the more vital and pressing. It seemed so to Englishmen, for example, during the two centuries following the accession of the Stuarts. At other times and places the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction, and in fifteenth century Europe, as in contemporary Italy, the dominant desire was for government strong enough and untrammelled enough to stem successfully a rising tide of disorder. Each age strikes its own balance in favor of one principle or the other, and thereby touches the opposite principle into action to redress the balance at some new point of readjustment.The competing claims of efficiency and control have often expressed themselves in the form of controversy concerning the comparative merits of government by discretion and govern-ment by law—or, in Harrington's phrase, a government of laws and a government of men. In this form the conflict has left its mark everywhere on political thought since Aristotle. Discretion means freedom for government to choose among possible alternatives of action. As one judge has said, "In honest plain language it means 'Do as you like.'" It is thus a condition of efficiency, but it is very apt to exact the price of arbitrariness. Law, on the other hand, requires that government shall act by set rule, shall limit itself to a particular way of acting in each particular situation. It seeks to eliminate choice in favor of certainty; it narrows the possible range of governmental action in order that such action may be predicted and controlled in advance.

ABSTRACT* * *This article uses a nationwide sample of state criminal cases to show the effects of reducing judicial sentencing discretion on disparities across rural‐urban, southern‐northern, black‐white, and poor‐nonpoor defendants. Judicial sentencing discretion is defined as the ratio between (1) the range in years within which a judge is allowed to sentence, and (2) the minimum number of years the judge must give when there is no probation. The data do indicate specific differences in sentencing between states of high judicial discretion and those of low judicial discretion, and the relationship of these disparities to discrimination is discussed.