This latest volume in the Penal Theory and Penal Ethics series addresses one of the oldest and most contested questions in the field of criminal sentencing: should an offender's previous convictions affect the sentence? Although there is an extensive literature on the definition and use of criminal history information, the emphasis here is on the theoretical and normative aspects of considering previous convictions at sentencing. Several authors explore the theory underlying the practice of mitigating the punishments for first offenders, while others put forth arguments for enhancing sentences for recidivists.This collection is welcome as it offers insights into the problems facing sentencers and penologists in taking past convictions into accountSusan EastonCriminal Law Review2011The editors and contributors tackle a particularly thorny issue in this elegant 256-page text: Should an offender's previous convictions affect sentence?.Professors Roberts and von Hirsch address with signal skill the question of just deserts and proportionality, the progressive loss of mitigation, the issues of first offender discounts.and the question of deserved punishment when recidivism is demonstratedJudge G RenaudCriminal Law QuarterlyVolume 59In Previous Convictions at Sentencing Roberts and Von Hirsch have brought together a selection of leading thinkers to illuminate an aspect of punishment theory and practice that has largely remained in the shadows despite its obvious importance. An attractive feature of the book, in addition to the thoughtful and penetrating analyses that it contains, is the vigorous exchange of views that takes place between its covers. The editors have not shied away from including perspectives that are at odds with their own, or from revising and reformulating their views, or indeed from finding fault with each other's conclusions.Ian O'DonnellPunishment & Society2011.