How would you punish? – Ústav kriminológie, sociológie práva a justičného výskumu

Model case: shoplifting

File number 4T/128/2025

Mr M. (34) was caught stealing goods worth 240 euros in a department store. He is a repeat offender: over the past five years he has twice been convicted of property crime, most recently to a suspended sentence whose probation period ended a year ago.

Mr M. is unemployed, lives alone in rented accommodation and is in debt. He did not resist arrest, admitted the theft and apologised to the department store. The stolen goods were returned undamaged. According to an expert report he has no addiction and explained the theft by his poor financial situation.

Legal classification: theft under section 212 of the Criminal Code. Given the recidivism the sentence ranges from 6 months to 3 years of imprisonment, or alternative sentences.

You decide the sentence in three steps. At the end you will see how the Slovak courts actually decided in similar cases between 2020 and 2024 (demonstration data from UKSPJV research).

The interactive walk through the case needs JavaScript. The case, the questions and the figures are listed below.

What sentence would you give Mr M.?

Suspended prison sentence The prison sentence is deferred for a probation period during which the offender has to prove himself. 46 %
Immediate prison sentence The sentence is served directly in prison. 21 %
Community service Between 40 and 300 hours worked for the public benefit. 16 %
Financial penalty Payment of a sum according to the means of the offender. 9 %
Restorative programme Mediation with the injured party, compensation and a conditional discontinuation of the prosecution. 8 %

In similar cases the courts most often impose a suspended sentence (46 per cent). Restorative solutions are used in only 8 per cent of cases, although the law allows them far more widely.

Would you also require Mr M. to compensate the store for the lost takings and the cost of security?

Yes, compensation is a condition The offender has to pay the damage actively, otherwise the sentence is tightened. 72 %
No, the sentence alone is enough The injured party should claim the damage in civil proceedings. 28 %

The courts impose a duty to compensate in 72 per cent of similar decisions. Research shows that active compensation raises the satisfaction of victims and lowers reoffending.

How would you weigh the fact that Mr M. confessed, apologised and returned the goods?

I would soften the sentence A confession and remorse are mitigating circumstances. 58 %
It would make no difference What matters is the recidivism, not the attitude after the act. 38 %
I would tighten the sentence anyway Repeated offending calls for a firm response. 4 %

Most courts (58 per cent) treat a confession and an apology as a mitigating circumstance. Restorative justice goes further and works with the attitude of the offender for the benefit of the victim.

Wondering why the courts punish the way they do?

UKSPJV study no. 10/2024 examined how the courts decide on alternative sentences. Research into recidivism also shows that community sanctions carry a markedly lower reoffending rate than prison.

UKSPJV publications Articles

The data in this application is for demonstration and serves to sign the concept off. In the production version it will be replaced with the real results of UKSPJV research.