In an age of advancing integration, comparisons of European criminal justice systems are increasingly important. In order to understand comparative sentencing data and practice, in particular, it is necessary to use a qualitative method to investigate the decisionmaking process and the context of sentencing. This study focused on judges’ views when sentencing burglars in two jurisdictions: Finland and England and Wales. In 1999, focus group interviews were conducted with 57 Crown Court judges in 12 groups in England and Wales and 51 District Court judges in 9 groups in Finland. In both countries the judges were presented with the same five domestic burglary scenarios. An identified difference in both countries was that in England and Wales, burglaries can be dealt with in two courts of first instance (the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court), and in Finland, there is only one court for burglary. Empirical findings illustrate that there are some shared aspects in how judges perceive the harm of domestic burglary and the appropriateness of responses to such crimes, and the purpose of such responses. In addition there were distinct differences in these perceptions and responses which indicate a clear demarcation of cultural assumptions and values. The overall conclusion was that even responses to a very specific type of crime were very different in the two jurisdictions, and that initiatives to achieve greater convergence within Europe on matters of sentencing practice will require more than diplomatic statements of intent. It will require an effort to understand judicial and social complexities and the cultural sensitivities evoked when a burglar is sentenced. References