‘Structuring’ judicial sentencing discretion : consistency, guidance or pandering to the punitive?
Data(s) |
01/09/2014
|
---|---|
Resumo |
Until quite recently, most Australian jurisdictions gave statutory force to the principle of imprisonment as a sanction of last resort, reflecting its status as the most punitive sentencing option open to the court.1 That principle gave primary discretion as to whether incarceration was the most appropriate means of achieving the purpose of a sentence to the sentencing court, which received all of the information relevant to the offence, the offender and any victim(s). The disestablishment of this principle is symptomatic of an increasing erosion of judicial discretion with respect to sentencing, which appears to be resulting in some extremely punitive consequences. |
Formato |
application/pdf |
Identificador | |
Publicador |
Legal Service Bulletin Co-operative Ltd |
Relação |
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/76087/1/C1_Stobbs_Structuring_Judicial_Accepted.pdf http://www.altlj.org/ Stobbs, Nigel, Kleinau, Lisa, & Kolstad, Shelley (2014) ‘Structuring’ judicial sentencing discretion : consistency, guidance or pandering to the punitive? Alternative Law Journal, 39(2), pp. 156-158. |
Direitos |
Copyright 2014 Legal Service Bulletin Co-operative Ltd |
Fonte |
Crime & Justice Research Centre; Faculty of Law; School of Law |
Palavras-Chave | #160203 Courts and Sentencing #mandatory sentences #Queensland |
Tipo |
Journal Article |