Comparisons within the field of sanctions have a long established tradition. Yet, at the same time, they are of a particular difficulty. In our search for the standards governing the system of sanctions we are referred to the general standards of civilization and culture. Perhaps, more than anything else in the criminal justice system, sanctions form part of the cultural pattern of society and, in turn, help creating or reinforcing a particular social pattern. As Garland puts it: “Punishment is one of the many institutions which help construct and support the social world by producing the shared categories and authoritative classifications through which individuals understand each other and themselves”. The particular cultural orientation and ambiance of sanctions do not allow for the light-handed transplant of elements of the system of sanctions from one jurisdiction to another. On the other hand, within a field of law which is, to put it mildly, not exactly characterized by an overflow of solutions and categories, an international and cross-cultural exchange of information has always been considered indispensable for the development of one's own system. Moreover, the concept of Human Rights has come to operate as a cross-cultural yardstick of comparison despite continuing discussion about its universalizability. Notwithstanding existing cross-cultural and individual differences, the measure of pain which States may impose on an individual in reaction to an offence is a matter of universal concern.

The sanctioning policy of a given society may be analysed on a number of levels. It may focus on the actions of the legislative body in the adoption of statutes, or on the legislative and administrative measures taken by the ministers and policy-makers who derive their formal powers from such statutes. Alternatively it may focus on the decisions of the courts, either by examining these on a statistical level or by analysing the content (the rhetoric as well as the substance) of their decisions. The present article will focus primarily upon the legislative policies of the Knesset in the matter of sanctions since the establishment of the state.

Before beginning the analysis of legislative policy in this area, two preliminary observations may be made regarding the informal constraints influencing the formulation of legislative policy in relation to the penal system during the formative years of the state.

In the Israeli legal system, trial courts determine offenders' punishments. Israeli law only sets maximum penalties for crimes and offenses, and rarely provides for mandatory punishment. Even the few instances of mandatory punishment are subject to the judicial discretion recently bestowed by amendment 39 of the Penal Law authorizing the court to impose a sentence lighter than the mandatory punishment, under special circumstances. The broad discretion bestowed by amendment 39 created a situation in which in practice the law would no longer provide for substantive mandatory sentencing. In view of this, the reform of amendment 39 was revised before it went into effect by Amendment 44 of the Penal Law. The current law stipulates that under mitigating circumstances the court may set a penalty lighter than the mandatory one prescribed by law, but that the court must state its reasons for so doing. Discretion is witheld in cases of mandatory life imprisonment for murder, the most important instance of mandatory punishment in our legal system. The law further stipulates that only in three well-defined circumstances may the court pass a reduced sentence for murder.

The role of the victim within the public criminal justice process has traditionally been one of supporting public prosecution. Without the victim's cooperation, police and prosecutors would neither be informed about the occurrence of crimes, nor be able to bring sufficient evidence to secure convictions or extra-judicial settlements. In Germany, for instance, about 90% of all prosecutions are initiated by private complaint.

Compared to what the victim gives the state, the state traditionally gives little to the victim. While the victim's procedural position has been strengthened in Germany in recent decades, namely by the expansion of the right to join the prosecution as a collateral complainant, procedural participation alone has not been sufficient to satisfy the victim's need to be made whole. Victimological research indicates that the victim has a profound interest in compensation of damages. However, since according to our traditional understanding, the victim's claims and the State's claims against the offender are inherently different in nature, they ought to be governed by different types of principles and proceedings. Doctrinally, the criminal courts settle the State's conflict with the offender, while the victim's conflict with the offender is a matter for the civil law and the civil courts. Therefore, the legal consequences of crime, it is believed, reflect primarily the needs of the general public and not the “private” interests of the victim (whether defined as to receive: compensation; reparation; satisfaction; vindication).

It is with great pleasure that I address you today at this Conference in Jerusalem. I believe that there is a profound symbolic meaning in putting the subject of victims of crime on the agenda of a conference in Israel, the homeland and the state of a people who, throughout history, have experienced much victimization.

Unfortunately, it seems that the historical collective experience of victimization does not necessarily enhance the understanding of the phenomenon of victims of crime — neither that of secondary victimization by the criminal justice system itself nor the responsibility of society to address victims’ needs and problems.

It seems that the criminal justice system in Israel, to a certain extent, is still detached from the victims rights movement which has been developing with growing impact during the last decade in the Western world. It is true that in recent years specific issues concerning victims of crime, such as violence in the family and child abuse, have been a topic of growing interest and action in Israel. As a result, legislation has been passed by the Knesset to deal with these issues and the groundwork for an infrastructure of social services is being laid. However, this does not appear to be a result of a genuine or widespread recognition of the social and legal importance of the commitment which a society should have towards the plight of crime victims. Rather, it seems to be more of a reaction to various political pressure groups.

On July 31, 1996, Israel and Canada signed a Free Trade Agreement in Toronto. This Agreement, which is the culmination of two years of negotiations, will — upon its forthcoming entry into force — set the framework for future trade between Israel and Canada. This is a significant step for Israel's trade: Canada's population, as of 1995, was 28.9 million; it is the seventh largest world market: in 1994, its export was $164.3 billion F.O.B. and its import was $151.5 billion C.I.F. The Canadian trade relies heavily on the United States, and a Free Trade Agreement is in force between the two since 1989.

Israel import from Canada totaled $216 million in 1995, most of which included sales of machinery and parts, aluminum, paper and paperboard, electrical equipment and parts, pulp of wood, cereals, sulphur and asbestos, optical measuring and checking equipment, wood and man-made staple fibers. That year, Israel export to Canada was $240.8 million, consisting mainly of diamonds, mechanical and electrical machinery and equipment. Like Canada, Israel has a free trade agreement with the United States. Since 1975, Israel has also had a free trade agreement with the European Community, which is, as of January 1,1996, replaced by the recently signed Association Agreement with the European Communities.