Evaluation categories in the criminal law of the USA and Great Britain: comparative analysis of sentencing standards and judicial discretion

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the peculiarities of the application of evaluative concepts in the criminal law of the United States of America and Great Britain. It is emphasized that it is the lack of certainty of such categories as “special cruelty”, “public danger” and “substantial harm” that requires established approaches to interpretation, because they directly affect the qualification of crimes and the imposition of punishment. Emphasis is placed on the American legal system, in which the lack of uniform criteria combined with the political diversity and standardization introduced through Federal Sentencing Guidelines has led to substantial differences in court sentences between states and federal courts. It is considered that excessive regulation reduces judicial discretion and at the same time does not eliminate the risk of inconsistency. The study demonstrates that excessive formalization does not eliminate disparities but instead transforms the mechanisms through which they arise. The English system, by contrast, relies on judicial precedent, structured methods of statutory interpretation and a broader scope of judicial discretion, enabling courts to incorporate contextual factors while preserving stability and predictability of decisions. Together with the American legal system, the peculiarities of the English system are analyzed, where judicial precedent and a wider space of judicial discretion play a key role. It is noted that the English courts have developed stable approaches to the use of evaluation categories, based on many years of case law, which ensures the consistency of sentences and relative predictability. A comparison of the two legal systems proves that the different instruments of legal regulation – standardised sentencing tables in the US and case law in the UK – have both advantages and disadvantages, particularly in ensuring a balance between flexibility and fairness. At the end of the article, the author summarizes the materials of his research and concludes about the need to improve approaches to the definition and application of evaluative concepts in Ukrainian criminal law, in particular by combining flexible judicial mechanisms and clearer material and legal criteria, which can increase the level of consistency and predictability of criminal justice.