The capacity of criminal sanctions to shape the behaviour of offenders : specific deterrence doesn’t work, rehabilitation might and the implications for sentencing

There is a considerable gap between the law and knowledge regarding the efficacy of state-imposed sanctions to achieve several key sentencing objectives. Two sentencing objectives which often carry considerable weight in the sentencing calculus are rehabilitation and specific deterrence, despite the fact that neither has been proven to be attainable. This article examines the empirical data on whether specific deterrence and rehabilitation are attainable, and consequently whether they should be retained or abolished as sentencing objectives.

Biosynthesis, localization, and macromolecular arrangement of the plasmodium falciparum translocon of exported proteins (PTEX)

To survive within its host erythrocyte, Plasmodium falciparum must export hundreds of proteins across both its parasite plasma membrane and surrounding parasitophorous vacuole membrane, most of which are likely to use a protein complex known as PTEX (Plasmodium translocon of exported proteins). PTEX is a putative protein trafficking machinery responsible for the export of hundreds of proteins across the parasitophorous vacuole membrane and into the human host cell. Five proteins are known to comprise the PTEX complex, and in this study, three of the major stoichiometric components are investigated including HSP101 (a AAA+ ATPase), a protein of no known function termed PTEX150, and the apparent membrane component EXP2. We show that these proteins are synthesized in the preceding schizont stage (PTEX150 and HSP101) or even earlier in the life cycle (EXP2), and before invasion these components reside within the dense granules of invasive merozoites. From these apical organelles, the protein complex is released into the host cell where it resides with little turnover in the parasitophorous vacuole membrane for most of the remainder of the following cell cycle. At this membrane, PTEX is arranged in a stable macromolecular complex of >1230 kDa that includes an ∼600-kDa apparently homo-oligomeric complex of EXP2 that can be separated from the remainder of the PTEX complex using non-ionic detergents. Two different biochemical methods undertaken here suggest that PTEX components associate as EXP2-PTEX150-HSP101, with EXP2 associating with the vacuolar membrane. Collectively, these data support the hypothesis that EXP2 oligomerizes and potentially forms the putative membrane-spanning pore to which the remainder of the PTEX complex is attached.

The High Court on crime in 2012 : outcomes and jurisprudence

This article examines the High Court decisions from 2012 which relate to criminal matters. This systematic analysis of all High Court judgments commenced in this Journal in 2010 and is now undertaken annually. The article explains the principles that derive from these cases and identifies jurisprudential themes from the decisions. It also sets out the significance of the cases and the possible wider consequences of the decisions.

An argument for uniform Australian sentencing law

Sentencing law and practice impacts on fundamental individual interests, both from the perspective of offenders and victims. It also affects community safety and security The scope of sentencing law and its principal objectives are broadly similar throughout Australia. However, there are many important differences, especially in relation to sentencing practice, with some jurisdictions appearing to impose considerably heavier penalties for certain offence types. This article argues that uniform sentencing law should be implemented throughout Australia. The likely benefits would extend beyond achieving greater consistency in sentencing outcomes. A move toward uniform national sentencing laws would provide the catalyst for an objective, evidence-based review of sentencing policy and practice, thereby providing a vehicle for harmonising the law with a wealth of empirical data regarding the objectives that can be achieved through a system of state-imposed sanctions. It would also present a meaningful opportunity for a normative assessment of the justifiable operation of sentencing law. The main impediment to uniform sentencing laws is likely to come from state and territory governments seeking to maintain control over this often socially controversial area as a means of securing and maintaining community support. However, this obstacle is not necessarily insurmountable. It is not clear whether sentencing policy is, in fact, a main driver of voter preferences. Some politicians may prefer to have ·national uniformity' as a buffer to counteract reflexive calls for tougher sentencing that often occur following particularly serious crimes or seemingly light sentences handed down by courts.

Injecting content into the mirage that is proportionality in sentencing

Sentencing involves the deliberate infliction of harm by society on individuals. It is the most coercive means through which the community imposes its collective (albeit civilised) displeasure at harmful conduct. It is an important and complex process, which involves balancing fundamental interests of victims and the community on the one hand and offenders on the other. The single most important determinant in setting criminal sanctions is the principle of proportionality, which provides that the harshness of the penalty should match the seriousness of the offence. The principle is intuitively appealing but in reality is an illusion, and hence the reason why penalties for criminal offences vary enormously within and across jurisdictions. The main reason is because there is no agreement regarding the considerations that inform offence severity or sanction hardship. This article injects content into the proportionality principle by suggesting that both limbs of the principle should be informed by the extent to which the crime and the sanction set back the well-being of victims and offenders, respectively. These interests are not conclusively mapped. However, a methodology is set out for establishing these interests. This will lead to greater consistency in sentencing and provide a sounder, normative foundation for the manner in which society deals with criminals.

The paradox of parity in sentencing in Australia: the pursuit of equal justice that highlights the futility of consistency in sentencing

Parity in sentencing is the principle that offenders who are parties to a crime should, all things being equal, receive the same penalty. While it is a well-established principle, the reality is that its scope is greatly limited by the largely unfettered nature of the sentencing calculus. Things are rarely equal between offenders due to the large number of variables that current orthodoxy maintains are relevant to sentencing. This makes application of the parity principle unpredictable, resulting in the paradox that parity highlights the unfairness that it is meant to mitigate: inconsistency in sentencing. This article contends that parity will remain an aspiration, as opposed to a concrete principle, until the instinctive synthesis approach to sentencing yields to a more transparent and precise decision-making process. The article focuses on Australian jurisprudence, but the analysis applies to all jurisdictions where sentencing has a considerable discretionary component (including the UK and the USA--apart from the limited circumstances where mandatory sentences apply).