The hierarchy of sanctions as a sound device for scaling sanction severity and a means to proportionate punishments was an idea engulfed in English sentencing. The case for sanction hierarchy came about through Andrew Von Hirsch and Martin Wasik. The sanction hierarchy was intended as a means of applying the principle of proportionality to the use of custodial and non-custodial sanctions playing a significant role as the framework for the allocation of sanctions. Their ideas and proposals stimulated debate and their views were challenged. There are three aspects of severity: punitive, correctional and functional severity. The first concerned proportionality between offense seriousness and sanction severity and raised the problem of scaling the quantum of punishment. The sanction hierarchy was not suited to this and may have facilitated disproportionate sentencing. The study stated what is required is the concept of the exchange rate. Scaling in regard to the second and third aspects aimed to ensure that the proportionate punishment is by way of the most humane and correctionally effective sanction. Scaling in this study is about the type of sanction. In regards to this sanction, the sanction hierarchy is suited but the two aspects of severity were ignored by Von Hirsch and Wasik. Sanction hierarchy is not a numerically sound or helpful device for implementing proportionality between offense seriousness and sanction severity. The work of Morris and Tonry was presented as an alternative approach and what followed was a proposed structure for sanction severity in accordance with the imperatives for the sentencing problem. Morris and Tonry proposed the use of highly individualized sentences. There is a distinct preference for non-custodial sanctions over imprisonment. Theirs’ is a simple correctional hierarchy, all other things being equal, non-custodial sanctions over imprisonment. What was offered is a numerically sound structure for scaling sanction severity and providing for individualization of sentence with respect to the offense and offender within a desert framework. References