Inequities, alternatives and future directions : inside perspectives of Indigenous sentencing in Queensland

In Australia, sentencing researchers have generally focussed on whether there is statistical equality/inequality in outcomes by reference to Indigenous status. However, contextualising the sentencing process requires us to move away from a reliance on statistical analyses alone, as this approach cannot tell us whether sentencing is an equitable process for Indigenous people. Consultation with those working at the sentencing ‘coal face’ provides valuable insight into the nexus between Indigenous status and sentencing. This article reports the main themes from surveys of the judiciary and prosecutors, and focus groups of Community Justice Groups undertaken in Queensland. The aim is to understand better the sentencing process for Indigenous Queenslanders. Results suggest that while there have been some positive developments in sentencing (e.g. the Murri Court, Community Justice Groups) Indigenous offenders still face a number of inequities.

Narratives of mitigation : sentencing Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

In their statistical analyses of higher court sentencing in South Australia, Jeffries and Bond (2009) found evidence that Indigenous offenders were treated more leniently than non-Indigenous offenders, when they appeared before the court under similar numerical circumstances. Using a sample of narratives for criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s higher courts, the current article extends Jeffries and Bond’s (2009) prior statistical work by drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach to establish whether, and in what ways, Indigeneity comes to exert a mitigating influence over sentencing. Results show that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that may have reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants. In addition, judges highlighted a number of Indigenous-specific constraints that potentially could result in imprisonment being construed as an overly harsh and costly sentence for Indigenous offenders.

An examination of the sentencing remarks of Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants in South Australia’s Higher Courts

Recent Australian research on Indigenous sentencing primarily explores whether disparities in sentencing outcomes exist. Little is known about how judges perceive or refer to Indigenous defendants and their histories, and how they interpret the circumstances of Indigenous defendants in justifying their sentencing decisions. Drawing on the ‘focal concerns’ approach, this study presents a narrative analysis of a sample of judges’ sentencing remarks for Indigenous and non-Indigenous criminal defendants convicted in South Australia’s Higher Courts. The analysis found that the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders differed in ways that possibly reduced assessments of blameworthiness and risk for Indigenous defendants.

Indigeneity and the likelihood of imprisonment in Queensland’s adult and children’s courts

Australian research on Indigenous sentencing disparities of the standard of international work is somewhat recent. Contrary to expectations based on international research, Australian studies generally have not found Indigenous offenders to be treated substantively more harshly than non-Indigenous offenders in similar circumstances. However, this research has primarily focused on adult higher courts, with little attention to lower courts and children’s courts. In this article, we examine whether Indigeneity has a direct impact on the judicial decision to incarcerate for three courts (adult higher, adult lower, children’s higher court) in Queensland. We found no significant differences in the likelihood of a sentence of incarceration in the higher courts (adult and children’s). In contrast, in the lower courts, Indigenous defendants were more likely to be imprisoned than non-Indigenous defendants when sentenced under statistically similar circumstances.

Restorative justice: Making amends, repairing relationships and healing

Since the late 1970s, there has been a significant expansion in techniques for using mediated interactions between offenders and those affected by their behaviour. This trend began with juvenile justice conferencing, family group conferencing and Indigenous sentencing circles. The umbrella term used to describe these techniques and processes is ‘restorative justice’ (‘RJ’ to its fans and practitioners).Two important catalysts for this expansion were an increased awareness of the marginalisation of victims in the criminal justice system, and concerns over climbing recidivism rates.

Sentencing Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Women in Western Australia’s Higher Courts

This article presents results from an exploratory study seeking to examine the role of sentencing in the continuing overrepresentation of Indigenous women in Western Australia’s prisons. Sentencing data from Western Australia’s higher courts indicate that Indigenous women were less likely than non-Indigenous women to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment when appearing before the court for comparable offending behaviour and histories.

Discrimination or Differential Involvement? A Review of the Research Exploring the Impact of Indigenous Status on Sentencing

Existing court data suggest that adult Indigenous offenders are more likely than non-Indigenous defendants to be sentenced to prison but once imprisoned generally receive shorter terms. Using findings from international and Australian multivariate statistical analyses, this paper reviews the three key hypotheses advanced as plausible explanations for these differences: 1) differential involvement, 2) negative discrimination, 3) positive discrimination. Overall, prior research shows strong support for the differential involvement thesis, some support for positive discrimination and little foundation for negative discrimination in the sentencing of Indigenous defendants. Where discrimination is found, we argue that this may be explained by the lack of a more complete set of control variables in researchers’ multivariate models.

The Impact of Indigenous status on adult sentencing : a review of the statistical research literature.

The gross overrepresentation of Indigenous peoples in prison populations suggests that sentencing may be a discriminatory process. Using findings from recent (1991–2011) multivariate statistical sentencing analyses from the United States, Canada, and Australia, we review the 3 key hypotheses advanced as plausible explanations for baseline sentencing discrepancies between Indigenous and non-Indigenous adult criminal defendants: (a) differential involvement, (b) negative discrimination, and (c) positive discrimination. Overall, the prior research shows strong support for the differential involvement thesis and some support for the discrimination theses (positive and negative). We argue that where discrimination is found, it may be explained by the lack of a more complete set of control variables in researchers’ multivariate models and/or differing political and social contexts.

Sentencing indigenous and non-indigenous women in Western Australia's higher courts : A summary of the main findings of a narrative study

This paper presents the main findings of a narrative examination of higher court sentencing remarks to explore the relationship between Indigeneity and sentencing for female defendants in Western Australia. Using the theoretical framework of focal concerns, we found that key differences in the construction of blameworthiness and risk between the sentencing stories of Indigenous and non-Indigenous female offenders, through the identification of issues such as mental health, substance abuse, familial trauma and community ties. Further, in the sentencing narratives, Indigenous women were viewed differently in terms of social costs of imprisonment.

What are the offence and offender risk factors for Indigenous repeat drink drivers in Queensland?

In Australia and internationally, there is scant information about Indigenous repeat drink drivers. The aim was to identify the risk factors associated with repeat offending. De-identified data on drink driving convictions by offenders identifying as Indigenous in Queensland between 2006 and 2010 were examined. A range of univariate analyses were used to compare first time and repeat offenders on gender, age, court location and region (based on the accessibility/remoteness index of Australia), blood alcohol concentration and sentencing severity. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for confounding variables. Convictions for repeat offenders were more likely from locations other than ‘major cities’ with the association strongest for courts in the ‘very remote’ region (OR=2.75, 2.06-3.76, p<.001). Indigenous offenders 40 years or older were found to be at reduced risk in comparison to offenders aged 15-24 years (OR=0.68, 0.54-0.86, p=0.01). After controlling for confounding factors, gender, sentencing severity and blood alcohol concentration levels were not significantly associated with recidivism. The association of recidivism and remoteness is consistent with higher rates of alcohol-related transport accidents involving Indigenous Australians in isolated areas. This study provides a platform for future research and allows for early attempts to address the need for intervention to reduce Indigenous drink driving recidivism.

Alcohol restrictions and drink driving in remote Indigenous communities in Queensland, Australia

Alcohol restrictions have been implemented in many Indigenous communities internationally, with the aim to reduce alcohol-related harm. Whilst a range of reviews have evaluated such restrictions using different measures, drink driving has been described in several reviews as increasing. Presently, this remains anecdotal; with limited empirical evidence to corroborate these reports. In Australia, the Queensland government introduced alcohol management plans in remote Indigenous communities, during 2002-2003, with total alcohol prohibition commencing in 2008 in some communities. Given road crashes are one of the leading causes of injuries for Indigenous peoples, this study aims to identify if the restrictions have been successful in reducing drink driving or have increased such behaviour. We examine this by reviewing changes in conviction rates and in offender and offence characteristics following the 2008 restrictions. Using de-identified Queensland court drink driving conviction data (2006-2011), from four Indigenous communities, Robust Poisson regression models compared counts of drink driving convictions pre (2006-2008) versus post SRS (2009-2011). Changes in offender characteristics and conviction details (blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and sentencing severity), were examined using chi-squares. Results indicate a decline in convictions after the 2008 SRS in three communities. However, a significant increase in convictions was identified in one study community. Community-level disparity included significant decline in BAC in one community (χ 2=5.58, p=0.02) compared with the three other communities that did not indicate change and a significant increase the number of women convicted in two communities (χ 2=17.36, p<0.01; χ 2=5.79, p=0.04). Alcohol restrictions may have important implications in road safety with these reductions in convictions and BAC in some communities. However, an increase in the number of women convicted and limited changes in BAC for other communities demonstrate the complex relationship between alcohol use, remoteness and driving. Greater focus on demand reduction strategies may be necessary to address alcohol misuse.