After three strikes-the continued discriminatory impact of the sentencing system against indigenous Australians: suggested reform

Three strikes laws are discriminatory but not for previously advanced reasons. The three strikes laws are merely an acute example of a fundamentally flawed sentencing system that discriminates against economically and socially disadvantaged people, particularly the group that is the focus of this article – Indigenous Australians. The repeal of the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing laws has not remedied the unfair manner in which sentencing law and practice operate against Aboriginals; either in the Northern Territory or generally. Criminal punishment systems around the world punish a disproportionate number of socially deprived people. In Australia, Indigenous Australians were grossly over-represented in Australian jails prior to the three strikes laws and will remain so unless steps are taken to address their disadvantage. The obvious solution to redress the over-representation by Indigenous Australians is to provide them with the same social opportunities and resources as the rest of the community. This is overly ambitious – at least in the short term. This article suggests a more attainable change in sentencing law to remedy some of the disadvantages experienced by Aboriginals. It suggests that far less weight should be accorded to prior convictions in the sentencing calculus.

What sort of mandatory penalties should we have?

The argument in favour of a widespread fixed penalty regime - adopting a primary rationale for punishment would facilitate a more coherent and exacting approach to sentencing - the central objections against fixed penalties are that they are too severe and lead to unfairness because they are unable to incorporate all the relevant sentencing variables - by adopting a utilitarian ethic as the primary rationale for punishment, these problems can be circumvented - no utilitarian justification for disproportionate punishment, and penalties should not exceed the seriousness of the offence - no foundation for most sentencing considerations - by disregarding irrelevant considerations, the remaining can be incorporated into a fixed penalty system - the way would then be open for a coherent sentencing law system in which criminal justice is governed by pre-determined rules and principles as opposed to the intuition of sentencers.

The mandatory life sentence for murder : an argument for judicial discretion in England

In 1965, alongside the abolition of capital punishment, a mandatory life sentence for murder was implemented in England and Wales. The mandatory life sentence served as a signal to the public that the criminal justice system would still implement the most severe sanction of life imprisonment in cases of murder. Nearly 50 years later, this article examines whether the imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder is still in the best interests of justice or whether English homicide law would be better served by a discretionary sentencing system. In doing so, the article considers debates surrounding the political and public need for a mandatory life sentence for murder by drawing upon interviews conducted with 29 members of the English criminal justice system. This research concludes that a discretionary sentencing framework is required to adequately respond to the many contexts within which the crime of murder is committed.

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 of indigenous offenders in Victoria

It is common knowledge, especially in the context of the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC),' that indigenous persons are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system. Unfortunately, little has changed since the RCIADIC and indigenous representation in prisons throughout the states and territories of Australia remains at high levels. What has come to prominence since the RCIADIC, particularly through the findings of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in the 1997 report Bringing Them Home, is the notion of the Stolen Generation. For practitioners with indigenous clients, an important matter that may be put in mitigation is the effect of belonging to the Stolen Generation in terms of offering not only an explanation for offending, but also in terms of submissions put forward on behalf of the client pertaining to disposition. In this context, the Victorian Court of Appeal decision in R v Fuller-Cust is an important one, particularly the dissenting judgment of Eames J. His Honour, in a persuasive and well-reasoned judgment, suggests a method of sentencing indigenous offenders that relates questions of Aboriginality, the Stolen Generation and punishment.

The sentencing advisory commission and the hope of smarter sentencing

Sentencing law practice - confused and incoherent Sentencing has been described as the 'high point in anti-jurisprudence' (Smith 1997:174). This comment reflects the fact that sentencing law is devoid of an overarching rationale. It is marked by a high degree of discretion and is shaped more by political expedience and intuition than informed inquiry and principle. The fact that sentencing is 'the most controversial and politically sensitive aspect of the criminal law' (Freckleton 1996:ix) has militated heavily against it being developed in a coherent and principled manner.

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.

The evolution of sentencing

The Sentencing Advisory Council's addition to the Victorian Criminal Justice landscape opens the way for Victorian sentencing law and practice to become a more socially acceptable, constructive, and forensic practice, this article suggests a blueprint for a more coherent and justifiable system of sentencing

Challenges in translating scientific evidence into mandatory food fortification policy: an antipodean case study of the folate- neural tube defect relationship

Objective: To identify challenges in translating scientific evidence of a  nutrient and health relationship into mandatory food fortification policy.
Design: A case study approach was used in which available evidence  associated with the folate–neural tube defect relationship was reviewed against the Australia New Zealand Food Regulation Ministerial Council's Policy Guideline for mandatory food fortification. Results: Three particular challenges were identified. The first is knowing when and how to act in the face of scientific uncertainty. The second is knowing how to address the special needs of at-risk individuals without compromising the health and safety of the population as a whole. The third is to ensure that a policy is sufficiently monitored and evaluated. Conclusions: Despite the availability of compelling evidence of a relationship between a particular nutrient and a health outcome, a definitive policy response may not be apparent.  Judgement and interpretation inevitably play significant roles in influencing whether and how authorities translate scientific evidence into mandatory food fortification policy. In relation to the case study, it would be prudent to undertake a risk–benefit analysis of policy alternatives and to implement nutrition education activities to promote folic acid supplement use among the target group. Should mandatory folate fortification be implemented,  comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of this policy will be essential to know that it is implemented as planned and does more good than harm. In relation to mandatory food fortification policy-making around the world,  ongoing national nutrition surveys are required to complement national policy guidelines.

Assessing the case for mandatory folate fortification : policy-making in the face of scientific uncertainties

This paper presents the view that policymakers face scientific uncertainties in assessing the case for mandatory folate fortification as a policy response to epidemiological evidence of the relationship between folate and neural tube defects. Moreover, the resolution of these uncertainties is confounded by the under-resourced state of nutrition information systems in Australia and New Zealand. The uncertainties relate to potential risks and benefits associated with the intervention for the target group and the population in general. These risks and benefits reflect the mismatch between evidence and policy that arises when addressing a presumed genetic abnormality in at-risk individuals with an intervention that is population-wide in its scope. There is an urgent need to conduct ongoing national nutrition surveys and monitor and evaluate policy interventions to strengthen the capacity of nutrition information systems to inform decision-making for this current, and future, public health nutrition policy.