The issue in this question concerns the effect of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) on the previous English sentencing system regarding one of the objectives of punishment, namely retribution. It is the duty of the courts to apply the law under section 142(1) of the CJA 2003. This section requires that the courts have considered the objectives of imposing a sentence on offenders, which now play a lesser role in the execution of the sentence. And how profound these changes have been. I will briefly discuss (a) the historical context of CJA 2003, (b) identify who the successor to CJA is, (c) recognize the difference in principle between CJA and its successor, i.e. the principles, objectives and priorities, (d) how this gives effect to the objectives of sentencing today for offenders, victims and communities, (e) and clarify what type of objectives the court is actually basing itself on decide the appropriate sentence for adult offenders in relation to custodial and community sentencing. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this statement. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF SENTENCING POLICY Prior to 1991, there was no general legal provision or statutory framework comprising the objectives of sentencing on which courts should rely. This left it to the courts to decide on their own, based on the facts of the case, what the best sentence is for the offender. However, by granting the court unlimited power to determine the sentence, it created uncertainty as to the basis on which the courts decided such a sentence. So, in 1991, the CJA was created in order to have a systematic approach to achieving punishment goals. The main provisions of the 1991 Act were dominated by retributive theories according to which penalties should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. However, some parts of the legislation reflect utilitarian theories middle of paper...... somehow gives a sense of security and protection under the law. By setting additional goals in sentencing, this will in one way or another achieve a balance between punishing the offender for the offense committed and harmonization within the community. So it appears that punishment has become the second element of sentencing goals, but in reality punishment has been implemented in the sentencing guidelines, particularly in the concept of seriousness of sentencing. the offense. The main difference between the CJA 1991 and 2003 is the creation of the SGC to monitor sentencing guidelines and this body impacted the convict in sentencing as well as the objectives of sentencing pain. It is therefore safe to say that the retributive principle still plays a role in the objectives of sentencing. This may not seem to play the main role mentioned in the quote, but the foundation of CJA 2003 is based on such a theory..