Sentencing: The new site of stereotyping — The ‘Two Finger’ test — Marital status of the victim — Perpetuation of rape myths in sentencing — Presence/absence of injuries — The shadow of relationship on sentencing — (a) Of ‘Reciprocal passion’ and ‘Youthful exuberance’: The case of elopement — (b) Cases of statutory rape not involving elopement — The (Dis)use of theories of punishment — Deterrence — Proportionality — ‘Ends of justice’ — Arbitrariness in sentencing: Irrelevance and inconsistency — Using evidentiary factors in sentencing — Mitigating factors — ‘Adequate and special reasons’ — (a) Mitigating factors cited by the Supreme Court — (b) Mitigating factors cited by High Courts — (i) Age as mitigating factor — (ii) Delay in the judicial process — (iii) Other mitigating circumstances — Location of the crime — Victim’s age — Aggravating factors — Sentencing in aggravated rape — Rape and murder — Conclusion — Endnotes — 5 Myths and Stereotypes in Rape Prosecutions — Introduction — Rape Myths and Stereotypes: Laws and Impact on Rape Adjudication — Identifying rape myths — Impact of rape myths on adjudication — Rape Law Reform — United States — United Kingdom — The Impact of Rape Myths on Sentencing — Conclusion — Endnotes — 6 Structuring Sentencing Discretion: Guideline Models and Approaches — Introduction — The History of Sentencing Discretion — England — United States — The Rationale Behind Sentencing Guidelines — Guideline Models — Legislative regulation models — Judicial models: Self-regulation by the judiciary — Appellate review — Guideline judgments — The ‘Instinctive synthesis’ doctrine — The sentencing commission model — Numerical guidelines model — (a) Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines — (b) The Federal Sentencing Guidelines — Specific guideline models: The case of Israel