“People’s law” and restorative justice: the success of circle sentencing in New South Wales

Informal sentencing procedures in remote Indigenous communities of Australia have been occurring for some time, but it was in the late 1990s that formalization of the practice began in urban areas with the advent of Indigenous sentencing and circle courts. These circle courts emerged primarily to address the over-representation and incarceration of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system. The first Indigenous urban court was assembled in Port Adelaide, South Australia in June 1999 and was named the Nunga Court. Courts emerging since in other states are based on the Nunga Court model, although they have been adapted to suit local conditions. The practice of circle sentencing was introduced in New South Wales (NSW) in Nowra in February 2002.

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).

Sentencing in Australia

Sentencing in Australia provides an up-to-date explanation of sentencing law and practice in all nine Australian jurisdictions.

Sentencing is the area of law which consumes most court of appeal work and this title satisfies the need for a thorough and coherent treatment of this complex subject, which involves a wide range of complex and interacting factors.

In this new work, lawyer and academic Mirko Bagaric and barrister Richard Edney consider the law across Australia. They examine existing practice and provide extensive analysis of the objectives of sentencing, in the form of incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation and proportionality.

The work systematically and comprehensively covers key mitigating and aggravating factors and the considerations which strongly influence sentencing determinations.

A Rational Approach To Sentencing White- Collar Offenders in Australia

There are no overarching (and few settled) principles governing the sentencing of white-collar offenders. This is especially the situation in relation to the relevance of public opprobrium to the sentencing calculus and the manner in which employment deprivations stemming from the penalty impact on the sentence. To the extent that there is general convergence in the approach to sentencing white-collar offenders, the approach is often not sound. This is the case in relation to the minor sentencing discount accorded for previous good character, and the prevailing orthodoxy which assumes that offences targeted at major institutions, such as banks, meaningfully impair community confidence in such institutions. Fundamental reform of the manner in which white-collar offenders are sentenced is necessary in order to make this area of law more coherent and doctrinally sound. These reforms include providing a significant and pre-determined discount for restitution, reducing the weight given to general deterrence in the sentencing calculus, and providing a greater discount for previous good character and employment deprivations suffered as a direct result of the sentence. Further, crimes against individuals should be regarded as being more serious than those committed against large corporations or the public revenue. The article focuses on the existing law in Australia, however, the reform proposals and doctrinal analysis could be applied to all jurisdictions.

The senseless war : the sentencing drug offenses arms race

There has been a considerable increase in the penalties for drug trafficking following the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, over fifty years ago. In many parts of the world, the sanctions are as severe as those for homicide and rape. This penalty escalation is at odds with the counter movement to decriminalise illicit drugs. Drug supplying is the only serious crime where there are widespread moves to decriminalize the main outcome of the crime – the use illicit drugs. This paper explores this paradox. It also examines the rationales for the increasingly harsh penalties for drug suppliers. We conclude that while there is no conclusive argument in favour of the decriminalizing drugs, the weight of empirical data does not establish any concrete benefits stemming from severe penalties for serious drug offenses. In particular, there is no correlation between longer prison terms for drug offenders and a reduction in the availability and use of drugs. We propose that the penalties for drug offenses should be reduced considerably. There is no useful objective that can be achieved by a twenty-five-year term of imprisonment that cannot be achieved by a term of five to ten years. A more measured sentencing response to serious drug offense penalties would make sentencing fairer and enable billions of dollars currently directed to imprisonment to be spent on more pressing community needs.

Proportionality in sentencing: the need to factor in community experience, not public opinion

This is the first book to address the question of what role public opinion should play in the way criminal offenders are punished.Should public opinion determine—or even influence—sentencing policy and practice? Should the punishment of criminal offenders reflect what the public regards as appropriate? These deceptively simple questions conceal complex theoretical and methodological challenges to the administration of punishment.In the West, politicians have often answered these questions in the affirmative; penal reforms have been justified with direct reference to the attitudes of the public. This is why the contention that politicians should bridge the gap between the public and criminal justice practice has widespread resonance. Criminal law scholars, for their part, have often been more reluctant to accept public input in penal practice, and some have even held that the idea of consulting public opinion constitutes a populist approach to punishment.The purpose of this book is to examine the moral significance of public opinion for penal theory and practice. For the first time in a single volume the editors, Jesper Ryberg and Julian V. Roberts, have assembled a number of respected criminologists, philosphers, and legal theorists to address the various aspects of why and how public opinion should be reflected in the way the criminal justice system deals with criminals. The chapters address the myriad complexities surrounding this issue by first weighing the justifications for incorporating public views into punishment practices and then considering the various ways this might be achieved through juries, prosecutors, restoratifve justice programs, and other means.

Sentencing: from vagueness to arbitrariness - the need to abolish the stain that is the instinctive synthesis

Criminal sanctions involve the deliberate infliction of hardship on offenders. In sentencing, the state acts in its most coercive and decisive manner: ‘the state may use its most awesome power: the power to use force against its citizens and others’. Despite the importance of the interests at stake in the sentencing realm,sentencing is arguably the least coherent, predictable and principled area of law. The High Court of Australia has not facilitated attempts to inject clarity and precision into sentencing determinations. It has repeatedly endorsed the ‘instinctive synthesis’ approach to sentencing, emphasising the need for ‘individual justice’ over the need for transparency and a step-wise systematic approach to sentencing.

First-time offender, productive offender, offender with dependents: why the profile of offenders (sometimes) matters in sentencing

Should a single mother of four young children who commits theft be sentenced to a lesser sanction than a woman who commits the same crime but has no dependents? Should a billionaire philanthropist be sentenced to a lesser penalty than the average citizen for assaulting a random bystander? Should a first-time thief receive a lighter sanction than a career thief for the same theft? The relevance of an offender’s profile to sentencing is unclear and is one of the most under-researched and least coherent areas of sentencing law. Intuitively, there is some appeal in treating offenders without a criminal record, those who have made a positive contribution to society, or who have dependents more leniently than other offenders. However, to allow these considerations to mitigate penalty potentially licenses offenders to commit crime and decouples the sanction from the severity of the offense, thereby undermining the proportionality principle. This article analyzes the relevance that an offender’s profile should have in sentencing. We conclude that a lack of prior convictions should generally reduce penalty because the empirical data shows that, in relation to most offenses, first-time offenders are less likely to reoffend than recidivist offenders. The situation is more complex in relation to offenders who have made worthy social contributions. They should not be given sentencing credit for past achievements given that past good acts have no relevance to the proper objectives of sentencing and it is normally not tenable, even in a crude sense, to make an informed assessment of an individual’s overall societal contribution. However, offenders should be accorded a sentencing reduction if they have financial or physical dependents and if imprisoning them is likely to cause harm to their dependents. Conferring asentencing discount to first-time offenders and those withdependents does not license them to commit crime or unjustifiablyencroach on the proportionality principle. Rather, it recognizes thedifferent layers of the legal system and the reality that sentencinglaw should not reflexively overwhelm broader maxims of justice,including the principle that innocent people should not suffer. Thisarticle argues that fundamental legislative reform is necessary toproperly reflect the role that the profile of offenders should have inthe sentencing regime.