Make a Submission
No. XLVII/2 (2025)
Articles

Disentangling sentencing for sexual offences: An analysis of Slovenian court decisions

PDF
  • Lora Briški,
  • Mojca Mihelj Plesničar
Lora Briški
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law; Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana
Mojca Mihelj Plesničar
Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana; University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law

Published 2026-07-23

Keywords

  • sexual offences,
  • sentencing,
  • penal policy,
  • punishment,
  • judicial reasoning,
  • Slovenia
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2026 Lora Briški, Mojca Mihelj Plesničar

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

“Disentangling sentencing for sexual offences: An analysis of Slovenian court decisions: Złożoność praktyki wymiaru kary za przestępstwa seksualne – analiza orzecznictwa sądów słoweńskich” (2026) Archives of Criminology, (XLVII/2), pp. 109–153. doi:10.7420/AK2025.17.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Sentencing for sexual offences demands heightened scrutiny due to the moral gravity, public sensitivity and enduring social consequences of these offences. This study examines sentencing practices in Slovenia through an analysis of court decisions from 2016 to 2021. Focussing on four offences – rape, sexual violence, sexual abuse of a defenceless person and child sexual assault – we identified a notable gap between the breadth of statutory sentencing ranges and the narrow portion of those ranges used in practice. Courts frequently imposed suspended sentences or custodial terms close to the statutory minimum and rarely used the upper limits, even in cases involving significant harm. Judicial reasoning was frequently minimal or inconsistent, with courts variably assessing aggravating and mitigating factors and occasionally even relying on controversial rationales. Our findings suggest systemic inconsistencies in sentencing for sexual offences in Slovenia and point to a broader tension between a traditionally restrained penal culture and the need for sentences that differentiate meaningfully between levels of harm and culpability in violations of sexual autonomy.

PDF

References

  1. Ackerman A.R., Sacks M., and Greenberg D.F. (2012). ‘Legislation targeting sex offenders: Are recent policies effective in reducing rape?.’ Justice Quarterly 29(6), pp. 858–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.566887
  2. Albonetti C.A. (1991). ‘An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion.’ Social Problems 38, pp. 247–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/800532
  3. Amirault J. and Beauregard E. (2014). ‘The impact of aggravating and mitigating factors on the sentence severity of sex offenders: An exploration and comparison of differences between offending groups.’ Criminal Justice Policy Review 25(1), pp. 78–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412462234
  4. Baehr K.S. (2008). ‘Mandatory minimums making minimal difference: Ten years of sentencing sex offenders in South Africa.’ Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20, pp. 213–246.
  5. Bandes S.A. (2016). ‘Remorse and criminal justice.’ Emotion Review 8(1), pp. 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601222
  6. Beeby A., Hobbs L., Gross J., Hayne H., and Patterson T. (2020). ‘Gender disparities in sentencing outcomes for sexual offenders.’ Journal of Sexual Aggression 0(0), pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552600.2020.1784476
  7. Benedet J. (2019). ‘Sentencing for sexual offences against children and youth: Mandatory minimums, proportionality and unintended consequences.’ Queen’s Law Journal 44, pp. 284–316. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5005191
  8. Bitsch A. and Klemetsen M.E. (2017). ‘The legal grading of sexual citizenship: Sentencing practices in Norwegian rape cases.’ Gender, Place & Culture 24(2), pp. 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2017.1298572
  9. Bradfield R. (2016). Mandatory Sentencing for Serious Sex Offences Against Children: Sentencing Advisory Council Final Report No. 7. Tasmania: Department of Justice. Available online: https://consensus.app/papers/mandatory-sentencing-for-serious-sex-offences-against-bradfield/27a30d37dd3656b5afa2c24a09f3cf4a/ [30.04.2025].
  10. Braun V. and Clarke V. (2019). ‘Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis.’ Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 0(0), pp. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
  11. Braun V. and Clarke V. (2021). Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
  12. Briški L. (2021). ‘Stereotipi o posilstvu na slovenskih sodiščih’ [Stereotypes about Rape in the Slovenian Courts]. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo 72(2), pp. 105–116.
  13. Burgstedt C., Beeby A., Hayne H., Hobbs L., Gross J., and Patterson T. (2022). ‘Does gender affect judges’ perceptions of sexual assault cases?.’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38, pp. 466–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221085034
  14. Butrus N. (2018). ‘Judicial sentencing considerations in cases of violent offenders versus sexual offenders.’ Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 25, pp. 653–674. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1473175
  15. Cochran J.C., Toman E., Shields R., and Mears D. (2020). ‘A uniquely punitive turn? Sex offenders and the persistence of punitive sanctioning.’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 58, pp. 74–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427820941172
  16. Comartin E.B., Kernsmith P.D., and Kernsmith R.M. (2009). ‘Sanctions for sex offenders: Fear and public policy.’ Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 48, pp. 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670903196066
  17. Cortina L.M. (2017). ‘From victim precipitation to perpetrator predation: Toward a new paradigm for understanding workplace aggression.’ In N.A. Bowling and M.S. Hershcovis (eds.) Research and Theory on Workplace Aggression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316160930.006
  18. Damiris I.K., McKillop N., Christensen L., Rayment-McHugh S., Burton K., and Patterson T. (2020). ‘Gendered judicial discourse in the sentencing of sexual offenders: A new explanatory model.’ Current Issues in Criminal Justice 33, pp. 228–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1837716
  19. Drápal J. and Plesničar M. (2025). ‘Sentencing elsewhere: Structuring sentencing discretion in post-communist Europe.’ European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 31, pp. 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-023-09568-4
  20. Drápal J., Bolocan-Holban A., Ginter J., Plesničar M., Tomšů K., and Vidaicu M. (2024). ‘Sentence justification in first-level courts in post-communist Europe.’ In J. Drápal (ed.) Justifying Punishment. London: Routledge, pp. 39–62. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003470670
  21. Duff A. (2003). Punishment, Communication, and Community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Duff A. (2009). ‘Punishment, retribution and communication.’ In A.V. Hirsch, A. Ashworth, and J.V. Roberts (eds.) Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy. Oxford, Portland: Hart, pp. 126–134.
  23. Field S. and Tata C. (eds.) (2023). Criminal Justice and the Ideal Defendant in the Making of Remorse and Responsibility. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
  24. Flander B. and Meško G. (2016). ‘Penal and prison policy on the “sunny side of the Alps”: The swan song of slovenian exceptionalism?.’ European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 22, pp. 565–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9299-1
  25. Gray J.M. and Horvath M.A.H. (2018). ‘Rape myths in the criminal justice system.’ In E. Milne, K. Brennan, N. South, and J. Turton (eds.) Women and the Criminal Justice System. London: Springer, pp. 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76774-1_2
  26. Hsieh M.-L., Hamilton Z., and Zgoba K.M. (2018). ‘Prison experience and reoffending: Exploring the relationship between prison terms, institutional treatment, infractions, and recidivism for sex offenders.’ Sexual Abuse 30(5), pp. 556–575. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063216681562
  27. Kääriäinen J. (2019). ʻKnowledge, punitive attitudes and punitive gap: Finnish findings.ʼ European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 25, pp. 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-018-9384-3
  28. Kazenski zakonik - KZ-1. Uradni list RS, št. 50/12 z dne 4. 6. 2008, s spremembami [KZ-1] [Criminal Code – KZ-1. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 50/12, from 4 June 2008, as amended].
  29. Keijser J. and Koppen P. (2007). ‘Paradoxes of proof and punishment: Psychological pitfalls in judicial decision making.’ Legal and Criminological Psychology 12, pp. 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X118721
  30. Keijser J., Koppen P., and Elffers H. (2007). ʻBridging the gap between judges and the public? A multi-method study.ʼ Journal of Experimental Criminology 3, pp. 131–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-007-9031-3
  31. Kemp S. and Varona D. (2022). ‘Foreign and dangerous? Unpacking the role of judges and prosecutors in sentencing disparities in Spain.’ The British Journal of Criminology 63(4), pp. 984–1002. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac068
  32. King L. (2019). ‘Perceptions about sexual offenses: Misconceptions, punitiveness, and public sentiment.’ Criminal Justice Policy Review 30, pp. 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403416660150
  33. Lakes Wood P. (1973). ‘The victim in a forcible rape case: A feminist view.’ American Criminal Law Review 11, pp. 225–354.
  34. Lees S. (1996). Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial. London: Hamish Hamilton.
  35. Levesque R. (2000). ‘Sentencing sex crimes against children: An empirical and policy analysis.’ Behavioral Sciences & The Law 18(2–3), pp. 331–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0798(200003/06)18:2/3<331::AID-BSL400>3.0.CO;2-7
  36. Lundberg A. (2015). ‘Sentencing discretion and burdens of proof.’ Law & Psychology eJournal [Preprint]. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2578661
  37. Nir E. and Liu S. (2021). ‘The challenge of imposing just sentences under mandatory minimum statutes: A qualitative study of judicial perceptions.’ Criminal Justice Policy Review 33, pp. 177–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/08874034211030555
  38. Penney J., Lehrer S., and Galan E. (2024). ‘Mandatory minimum sentencing and its effect on sentencing distributions: Evidence from Canada.’ Canadian Journal of Economics 57(1), pp. 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12696
  39. Pina-Sánchez J., Grech D., Brunton-Smith I., and Sferopoulos D. (2019). ‘Exploring the origin of sentencing disparities in the Crown Court: Using text mining techniques to differentiate between court and judge disparities.’ Social Science Research 84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102343
  40. Plesničar M.M. (2014). ‘Shielding criminal justice from politics.’ In P. Cserne, M. Könczöl, and M. Soniewicka (eds.) The Rule of Law and the Challenges to Jurisprudence. Selected Papers Presented at the Fourth Central and Eastern European Forum for Legal, Political and Social Theorists, Celje, 23–24 March 2012. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag, pp. 127–137. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-03617-6
  41. Plesničar M.M. (2017). ‘Postopek odločanja o sankcijah’ [Sentencing procedures]. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo 68(3), pp. 258–268.
  42. Plesničar M.M. and Jankovič A. (2022). ‘Kaznovanje spolne kriminalitete: primer posilstva’ [Sentencing for sexual offences: The case of rape]. In A. Šelih, M. Ambrož, and M.M. Plesničar (eds.) Odzivanje na spolno kriminaliteto: modeli spreminjanje in družbeni kontekst [Responding to sexual offences: Models, change, and social cotnext]. Ljubljana: Slovenska akademija znanosti in Umetnosti, Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti v Ljubljani, pp. 89–114.
  43. Plesničar M.M. and Lipovac D. (2026, forthcoming). ‘Sentencing sexual offences: Understanding who goes to prison in a low-custody system.’ In J. Drapal and J. V. Roberts (eds.). Palgrave Macmillan.
  44. Plesničar M.M. and Tripkovic M. (2024). ‘Communicating confidence: Suspended sentences as communicative punishment.’ Pravni zapisi 15(1), pp. 239–271. https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-50554
  45. Plesničar M.M., Babnik A., Briški L., Fišer Z., Jankovič A., and Pina-Sánchez J. (2023). Poenotenje odločanja o sankcijah v kazenskih postopkih [Improving consistency of sentencing in criminal proceedings]. Ljubljana: Inštitut za kriminologijo pri Pravni fakulteti.
  46. Plesničar M.M., Jankovič A., and Briški L. (2022). ‘Kaznovanje spolne kriminalitete v Sloveniji’ [Sentencing sexual offences in Slovenia]. Revija za kriminalistiko in kriminologijo 73(2), pp. 87–106.
  47. Proeve M. and Tanvir T. (2022). ‘When “I did it” is not enough: Content analysis of remorse in sentencing remarks.’ Current Issues in Criminal Justice 34, pp. 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2022.2085953
  48. Reyes I.B. (2003). ‘The epidemic of injustice in rape law: Mandatory sentencing as a partial remedy.’ UCLA Women’s Law Journal 12(2), pp. 355–378. https://doi.org/10.5070/L3122017767
  49. Rinde K.R., Vučić T., Andresen M.G., Havnen A., and Solem S. (2024). ‘She asked for it? Descriptions of victims’ behaviors are associated with sentencing in Norwegian rape trials.’ Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 66(3), pp. 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.13088
  50. Roberts J.V. and Petzsche A. (2025). ‘Sentencing procedures under the adversarial and inquisitorial models of justice: A comparative analysis.’ Criminal Law Forum 36, pp. 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-025-09506-5
  51. Roberts J.V. and Pina-Sánchez J. (2021). ‘Sentence reductions for a guilty plea: The impact of the revised guideline on rates of pleas and “cracked trials”.’ The Journal of Criminal Law 86, pp. 327–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183211041912
  52. Roberts J.V. and Plesničar M.M. (2015). ‘Sentencing, legitimacy, and public opinion.’ In G. Meško and J. Tankebe (eds.) Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice. Cham: Springer, pp. 33–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09813-5_2 [15.09.2015].
  53. Roberts J.V., Stalans L.L., Indermaur D., and Hough M. (2003). Populism and Public Opinon: Lessons from Five Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  54. Rumney P. (1999). ‘When rape isn’t rape: Court of Appeal sentencing practice in cases of marital and relationship rape.’ Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 19, pp. 243–269.
  55. Rydberg J., Cassidy M., and Socia K.M. (2018). ‘Punishing the wicked: Examining the correlates of sentence severity for convicted sex offenders.’ Journal of Quantitative Criminology 34(4), pp. 943–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9360-y
  56. Shields R. and Cochran J.C. (2020). ‘The gender gap in sex offender punishment.’ Journal of Quantitative Criminology 36, pp. 95–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10940-019-09416-X
  57. Smith O. and Skinner T. (2017). ‘How rape myths are used and challenged in rape and sexual assault trials.’ Social & Legal Studies 26(4), pp. 441–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663916680130
  58. Socia K.M., Rydberg J., and Dum C.P. (2019). ‘Punitive attitudes toward individuals convicted of sex offenses: A vignette study.’ Justice Quarterly 38, pp. 1262–1289. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1683218
  59. Tata C. (2020). Sentencing: A Social Process: Re-thinking Research and Policy. Cham: Palgrave Pivot. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-01060-7
  60. Tata C. and Gormley J.M. (2012). ‘Sentencing and plea bargaining: Guilty pleas versus trial verdicts.’ In Oxford Handbooks Editorial Board (ed.) Oxford Handbook Topics in Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935383.013.40
  61. Thompson L., Rydberg J., Cassidy M.B., and Socia K.M. (2020). ‘Contextual influences on the sentencing of individuals convicted of sexual crimes.’ Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment 32, pp. 778–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063219852936
  62. Tudor S., Weisman R., Proeve M., and Rossmanith K. (eds.) (2021). Remorse and Criminal Justice: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429001062
  63. Wallin L., Uhnoo S., Wettergren Å., and Bladini M. (2021). ‘Capricious credibility – legal assessments of voluntariness in Swedish negligent rape judgements.’ Nordic Journal of Criminology 22(1), pp. 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/2578983X.2021.1898128
  64. Warner K. (2002). ‘Sentencing sexual offenders in the UK and Australia.’ In C. Tata and N. Hutton (eds.) Sentencing and Society: International Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 504–527. https://figshare.utas.edu.au/articles/chapter/Sentencing_Sexual_Offenders_in_the_UK_and_Australia/23050364/1 [28.04.2025].
  65. Yan S. and Bushway S.D. (2018). ‘Plea discounts or trial penalties? Making sense of the trial-plea sentence disparities.’ Justice Quarterly 35(7), pp. 1226–1249. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1552715
  66. Zakon o kazenskem postopku – ZKP. Uradni list RS, št. 176/21 z dne 13. 10. 1994, s spremembami [ZKP] [Criminal Procedure Act – ZKP. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, no. 176/21, from 13 October 1994 as amended].
  67. Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Kazenskega zakonika - KZ-1H. Uradni list RS, št. 95/21 z dne 15. 6. 2021 [KZ-1H] [Act amending and supplementing the Criminal Code – KZ-1 H. Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, np. 95/21 from 15 June 2021].
  68. Zydervelt S., Zajac R., Kaladelfos A., and Westera N. (2016a). ‘Lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s?.’ British Journal of Criminology 57(3), pp. 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw023

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.