The disunity of employment law and sentencing

This article discusses the lack of integration between criminal sanctions and employment deprivations (in the form of being dismissed from employment or disqualified from working in certain industries). Offenders who are employed in certain industries, especially the professions, often suffer a far greater net punishment upon being found guilty of a criminal offence than other offenders, thereby violating the principle of proportionality and the (related) principle of equality in the impact of sanctions. The reason that such a situation has developed is because criminal sanctions and employment deprivations have evolved from different streams of jurisprudence. This article argues that sentencers should impose a ‘net’ sanction for a criminal offence, thereby merging these streams of jurisprudence. This would require courts to be vested with the power to suspend or disqualify people from being employed in certain occupations. The legal analysis in this article focuses on case and statutory law in Australia, however, the same broad principles apply in all common law jurisdictions, including the UK. Hence, the reform proposals suggested in this article are relevant throughout the common law world.

Addressing the curious black spot that is the separation between the principle of legality and sentencing

The principle of legality has evolved into a clear and entrenchedjurisprudential mechanism for protecting common law rights and freedoms. It operates as a shield to preserve the scope of application of fundamental rights and fre edoms. In recent years it has been increasingly applied by the courts to limit the scope of legislative provisions which potentially impinge on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Yet there is one domain where the principle of legality is conspicuously absent: sentencing. Ostensibly, this is paradoxical. Sentencing is the realm where the legalsystem operates in its most coercive manner against individuals. In thisarticle, we argue that logically the principle of legality has an importantrole in the sentencing system given the incursions by criminal sanctionsinto a number of basic rights, including the right to liberty, the freedom ofassociation and the deprivation of property. By way of illustration, we setout how the principle of legality should apply to the interpretation of keystatutory provisions. To this end, we argue that the objectives of generaldeterrence and specifi c deterrence should have less impact in sentencing. It is also suggested that judges should be more reluctant to send offenders with dependants to terms of imprisonment. Injecting the principle of legality into sentencing law and practice would result in the reduction in severity of a large number of sanctions, thereby reducing the frequency and extent to which the fundamental rights of offenders are violated. The methodology set out in this article can be applied to alter the operation of a number of legislative sentencing objectives and rules.

Scientific proof that humans enjoy punishing wrongdoers: The implications for punishment and sentencing

Recent developments in brain science confirm that as a race we are in fact a punitive lot. Human beings actually derive pleasure from inflicting punishment on wrongdoers. We are wired in such a way that the part of our brain that reports pleasure is activated when we punish norm violators. This is even when punishment has no tangible or demonstrable benefits. However, we are not slaves lo our emotions. Another region of our brain 'kicks-in' if punishment becomes self-defeating, in that it conflicts with our other interests. The implications of this research for punishment theory and the practice of sentencing are discussed in this paper. The findings give qualified support to the theory known as intrinsic retributivism, but do not suggest it is the soundest theory of punishment. This is because we stop punishing when it comes at a cost to us. The good feeling that punishment invokes in punishers is another consequential consideration in favour of the utilitarian theory of punishment. However, it is not clear that the utilitarian calculus is necessarily affected by the findings. The main implication of the research findings relates to the relevance of public opinion to sentencing practice. The findings support the view that public sentiment, which seems to support increasingly tougher sanctions, can be curtailed of the public are informed that punishment comes of a cost to community.

Immortality and sentencing law

The time may not be far away where we may be able to live much longer than we do now – potentially forever. This will have an enormous impact on the way people live their lives as the underlying premise that life is finite underpins many of the central decisions and life choices we make. This paper outlines some philosophical and legal doctrines that are based on the premise that life is finite and some of the changes that may need to occur in light of medical advances in ageing. In particular, it focuses on the changes to sentencing law that may be necessary to accommodate increased human longevity. For the skeptics who refuse to accept the concept of immortality, the arguments presented do not depend on living forever. Some of the issues discussed here are also relevant, albeit in an attenuated manner, because of increases in human longevity that have occurred in the last 100 years.

The pillory effect : media, the courts and the punitive role of public shaming in Australia

Public shaming and humiliation have been used across cultures for centuries to punish offenders and define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour for communities. This article argues that since court-imposed shaming sanctions were phased out in Australia, the news media has assumed responsibility for performing this cultural practice. Through critical engagement with some of the research literature on shaming, the historical shift to the media as the modern pillory is explored. This article looks beyond the doctrine of open justice, which assigns the news media a dual role as a watchdog against injustice and a conduit between the courts and the public, to consider its role in shaming and suggest this role continues to evolve in a changing media landscape.

Multiplicity of International Courts and Tribunals

This work comprehensively explores the implications of multiplicty of international judicial bodies on the coherent application of public international law. It carried out an in-depth analysis of the underlying reasons for the multiplicity, a thorough discussion of the benefits and the challenges presented by this development, its theoretical dimensions and solutions suggested to mitigate the challenges. The work locates the root causes of these challenges in the normative and institutional expansions of international law without a corresponding coordination of the activities of the ¿proliferating¿ judicial bodies. The challanges are systemic in nature. Clearly, because of their systemic nature, the impacts of these challenges are not limited to the specific courts, cases and parties implicated, but have a ripple effect that reverberates throughout the system. Therefore, the mitigation of the impacts of these challenges is of a paramount importance for the credibility, predictability, legitimacy and overall integrity of the international legal system and the eventual augmentation of the ¿compliance pull¿ garnered as a result.

Sentencing of male and female child sex offenders : Australian study

Research suggests that, in line with the chivalry hypothesis of female offending, a range of mitigatory factors such as mental health problems, substance abuse, and personal experiences of abuse are brought into play when women who offend against children are brought to trial. This is reflected in sentencing comments made by judges and in the sanctions imposed on the offenders, and as a result female offenders are treated differently to male offenders. The current study investigated this in an Australian context. Seven cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse were identified over a 6-year period through the Austlii database. Seven cases of male-perpetrated child sex abuse matched as far as possible to these were identified. Court transcripts were then located, and sentencing comments and sanctions imposed were analysed. All offenders were sentenced to imprisonment, but in general the women were more likely than the men to receive less jail time and lower non-parole periods because their personal backgrounds or situation at the time of the offending (i.e., difficulties with intimate relationship, male dependence issues, depression, loneliness and anger) were perceived as worthy of sympathy, and they were considered as likely to be rehabilitated. Further investigations are needed to support these findings.

The problematic relationship between customary international law and the domestic courts

The relationship between international law and domestic law has long been problematic. This article considers in particular the enforcement of customary international law through an analysis of judicial practice in England and Australia. The examination of the jurisprudence suggests that domestic judges often feel uncomfortable when asked to apply international law in the domestic courts and struggle to somehow justify its use. This has led to an inconsistency in judicial practice in the application of international law in jurisdictions such as Australia. However, ultimately the monist theory that recognizes that customary international law automatically flows into the domestic law appears to be reflected in an emerging trend in judicial practice in the common law judicial systems under consideration. However, the article suggests that the English courts now see international crimes as an exception to that theory and require domestic legislative transformation. Ultimately the article concludes that the municipal courts provide an important forum for the enforceability of customary international law, including human rights norms.

The honeymoon killer : plea bargaining and intimate femicide : a response to Watson

In October 2003, US citizen Christina Thomas died while scuba diving on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. Following over five years of delays, her husband David Watson accepted a plea bargain to which he pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence. Watson was initially sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, however this was later increased on appeal to suspension after 18 months. Using Watson as a framework for analysis, this article examines some of the limitations of an inefficient justice system, with a particular focus on the private nature of the plea bargaining process, and the potentially favourable representations and sentencing of men who kill a female intimate partner. The authors argue that the need to respond to court inefficiency and under-resourcing in the criminal courts creates pressures that can result in a desire for increased efficiency being prioritised above other justice concerns, and this allows for existing flaws within the operation of the criminal justice system to be exacerbated, and excused.

The moral rights of authors and performers: an international and comparative analysis

This book is a comprehensive guide to the development and utilization of authorial moral rights across the key jurisdictions of the English-speaking world and in France and Germany. In recent years, the copyright statutes of the common law countries have been expanded by the introduction of provisions dealing with purely authorial rights - moral rights.
The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers discusses the historical development of the rights in Europe, with particular reference to France and Germany, and shows the growth of moral rights theory and legislative coverage up to the late 1930s. During the 1920s the moral rights of authors became the subject of international protection, particularly through the operation of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The book explores the adoption of moral rights into this and other international instruments, explaining the functions that moral rights were intended to perform.
The author gives detailed accounts of the operation of moral rights in France and Germany today, addressing both statutory interpretation and doctrinal issues. The provision of case studies gives an impression of the rich jurisprudence associated with the rights in these countries.
The book also contains a detailed discussion of the versions of moral rights that have become entrenched in Canada, the UK, the US and Australia, with each country considered independently. It deals separately with the introduction of the rights into each country and their operation and interpretation by courts and commentators. Material on common law analogues to the rights is provided, which indicates alternative actions that practitioners might take. Problems of cross-jurisdictional legal proceedings (especially arising from technological transfer of information) are also addressed, with moral rights protection elsewhere in the world summarized in tabular form.