The Principle of Proportionality of Punishment in Criminal Law: An Appraisal of the Ethiopian Anti-Terrorism Law

Abstract

This paper focuses on the calibration of punishments which is among the controversial issues, whereby this specific law is eloquently criticized and vehemently alleged from in and out of the country from its outset. Therefore, the paper concludes that the way punishments are prescribed are not in line with the principle of proportionality of punishment which is adhered to different criminal laws in different jurisdictions as well as the FDRE constitution so long as it fails to appropriately consider the social harm that the terrorist act caused and culpability of the offender though they are both basic parameters of gauging the proportionality of punishments. This is because of the basic reasons that in this specific law, inchoate crimes including pre-attempt terrorist offences (remote harms) are equally punishable with other completed offences irrespective of the seriousness of the social harm that they caused. Similarly, terrorist offences which are committed intentionally and other terrorist offences that are committed by the negligence of the offender are equally punishable in the law regardless of the mens rea element (culpability of the offender) that the offender has.

Keywords: proportionality of punishment, harm, culpability, preventive detention, inchoate offences