The law establishes a two-stage test in sentencing a defendant (except if there are several offenses, in which case there is a preliminary stage to determine whether it is a single event for the purpose of punishment). In the first stage, the court must determine the appropriate range of punishment, taking into account the severity of the offense and the circumstances in which it was committed. A normative-objective test. In the second stage, the court must examine whether there are exceptional considerations relating to the defendant that justify deviating from the compound determined in the first stage – the potential for special rehabilitation (in which case it is possible to deviate from the compound for severity) or protection of the public (in which case it is possible to deviate from the compound to the extent of severity), and in the third stage, the court must examine the circumstances of the defendant before it (for severity and severity), and in light of them, to sentence his sentence. The importance of the distinction between the stages and their essence was discussed by the Honorable Justice Uzi Fogelman inCrim. Appeal 2918/13 Ahmad Debs v. State of Israel (published in Nevo, 2013, paragraph 6 of his judgment):
"We are dealing with a sentence that was given after Amendment 113 came into effect. This amendment is intended to understand the court's discretion in determining the sentence, in accordance with the principles and criteria set forth in Section A1 of Chapter F of the Penal Law. The amendment states that the court is required to conduct a three-stage examination for the purpose of sentencing the sentence: in the first stage, it must determine the range of punishment that is appropriate to the circumstances of the offense and only them. This is a normative-objective complex. To this end, he must take into account four considerations: (1) the social value that was harmed by the commission of the offense; (2) the extent of the harm to this value; (3) the customary punitive policy; and (4) the circumstances related to the commission of the offense detailed in section 40T of the Law (section 40C(a) of the Penal Law). In the second stage, the court is required to examine whether there are exceptional considerations relating to the defendant that justify deviating from the scope determined in the first stage – the potential for special rehabilitation or protection of the public, as detailed in sections 40D and 40E of the Law (section 40C(b) of the Law). If the court does not find preference for considerations of rehabilitation or protection of the public, the court will move on to the third stage, in which it must determine the punishment that will be imposed on the defendant within the compound it has determined. At this stage, the court was required to consider the defendant's personal circumstances of severity and severity – those detailed in section 40K of the Law, as well as other circumstances to the extent that it found them relevant (sections 40c(b) and 40b of the Law)... In order for the correction to achieve its purpose, it is very important to separate the stages. While the first stage reflects a normative-objective criterion, the other two stages take into account the subjective-personal characteristics of the accused. This separation is intended to enable the gradual development of an appropriate punishment complex that focuses on the circumstances of the offense, which can be applied in a uniform, consistent and egalitarian manner in similar offense circumstances, in a manner consistent with the principle of uniformity of punishment.... This, without detracting from the weight that must be attributed to the personal circumstances of the offender, which serve as considerations of her voice and severity, in accordance with the principle of individual punishment...."