{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025022341376228777, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.473988439306359, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constitutionalism and the criminal law: Rethinking criminal trial bifurcation

The article challenges the bifurcation of criminal trials into two distinct phases of conviction and sentencing, as well as the all-or-nothing sentencing regime that such separation facilitates. Pointing to the sub-optimality of the bifurcation of decision-making regarding guilt and punishment, the article proposes an alternative sentencing regime - comparative sentencing - in which the severity of the punishment is correlated with the probability of guilt. It shows that in the epistemic space above the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' threshold, comparative sentencing has a greater deterrent effect than uniform punishment, detached from certainty of guilt. It also demonstrates that when the level of certainty as to the defendant's guilt does not meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard, the imposition of partial punishment, reflecting epistemic certainty as to the defendant's culpability, may also lead - in certain circumstances - to better deterrence outcomes than the existing alternative of no punishment (full acquittal).