The honeymoon killer : plea bargaining and intimate femicide : a response to Watson

In October 2003, US citizen Christina Thomas died while scuba diving on Queensland’s Great Barrier Reef. Following over five years of delays, her husband David Watson accepted a plea bargain to which he pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence. Watson was initially sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, however this was later increased on appeal to suspension after 18 months. Using Watson as a framework for analysis, this article examines some of the limitations of an inefficient justice system, with a particular focus on the private nature of the plea bargaining process, and the potentially favourable representations and sentencing of men who kill a female intimate partner. The authors argue that the need to respond to court inefficiency and under-resourcing in the criminal courts creates pressures that can result in a desire for increased efficiency being prioritised above other justice concerns, and this allows for existing flaws within the operation of the criminal justice system to be exacerbated, and excused.

‘Till death do us part : judging the men who kill their intimate partners

This paper examines the construction of masculinity in judge’s sentencing remarks across seventeen cases of male perpetrated intimate femicide sentenced between March 2005 and May 2007 in the Victorian Supreme Court. Using a narrative analysis of sentencing transcripts it investigates how ideal understandings of hegemonic masculinity are used in judicial decision making to condemn or sympathise with male offenders of intimate femicide. The findings illustrate the profound influence that traditional understandings of masculinity and fatherhood still have on current sentencing practises despite the current climate of homicide law reform both within Australia and overseas. Whilst this paper did not directly assess the impact of recent homicide law reforms, specifically provocation, it is explicitly concerned with the continued influence of gender norms and bias at the sentencing stage of the legal process. As such, it provides a preliminary illustration of the key role that judges play in advocating or rejecting change within the criminal justice system, and more broadly legitimising attitudes about male violence against women throughout society. In condoning the use of extreme violence, in any context, judges send a message to society that such behaviour is either generally or specifically acceptable and accommodated within a legal framework.

The aftermath of provocation : homicide law reform in Victoria, New South Wales and England.

Over the past decade, homicide law reform surrounding the partial defences to murder has animated debate among criminological scholars and legal stakeholders in Australia and the United Kingdom. In response to these debates, criminal jurisdictions have conducted reviews of the partial defences to murder and implemented reforms targeted at reducing gender bias in the law which has played out through the operation of the partial defence of provocation. This research examines the different approaches taken to addressing the problem posed by provocation in Victoria, New South Wales and England. In doing so, it explores questions around the need for reform to the law of homicide, the effects of these reforms in practice, and the influential role of sentencing in questions surrounding homicide law reform. Throughout the analysis key frameworks of criminological thought in relation to feminist engagements with the law, the conceptualisation of denial and the influence of law and order politics upon the development of criminal justice policy are applied. By drawing on 81 in-depth interviews conducted with legal stakeholders across the three jurisdictions under study, and an analysis of relevant case law, this research concludes that reforms implemented to counter gender bias in the operation of homicide law have produced mixed results in practice, particularly in connection to the law’s response to three key categories of person in the courtroom: the jealous man, the female victim of homicide, and the battered woman.

Provocation in New South Wales : the need for abolition

Over the past two decades significant debate has emerged surrounding the operation of the partial defence of provocation. Such debates have led to its abolition in several Australian and international jurisdictions where Government and Law Commission bodies have argued that provocation has operated in a gender biased way that is no longer reflective of community values and expectations of justice. In contrast to the Australian states of Tasmania, Victoria and Western Australia, who have transferred consideration of provocation to sentencing, New South Wales (NSW) has retained provocation as a partial defence to murder. Drawing upon in-depth interviews conducted with legal stakeholders and an analysis of recent case law, this article considers whether the operation of provocation in NSW is still in the best interests of justice, and, specifically, whether in practice it privileges one gender above the other. This research concludes that the continued operation of provocation in NSW raises key issues surrounding the legitimisation of male violence against women, the denial and minimisation of the harm caused by lethal domestic violence, and the continued inability of the law to appropriately respond to women who kill in the context of prolonged family violence.

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.

Judicial valuation of the social costs of crime

The true economic functions of the criminal courts are, first, to deter potential prospective offenders from committing offences, and in so doing reduce the total social costs of crime in the future; and secondly, to force the convicted offender to bear some of the costs, which the crime has externalised onto the victim(s) and wider society through retributive justice. These objectives are achieved through the sentencing function. Critics have lamented that too many extraneous factors are taken into account when setting penalties but the authors argue in this article that nevertheless these sentences are optimal because of the judges' comparative advantage. What is of great interest, and the focus of this article, are the implicit valuations of the social costs of crime that these sentences imply. Using the South Australia higher criminal courts as a case study, the authors estimate and utilise these judicial valuations to suggest a methodology for measuring the true economic value of the criminal courts. The analysis helps put into perspective the courts' very valuable contribution to social welfare.

A governance of denial: hate crime in New Zealand and Australia

In Australia and New Zealand, the strategies employed by governments to remedy prejudice, intolerance and hatred occur on a continuum; ranging from global mission statements about multiculturalism/ biculturalism, through to the enactment of civil anti-discrimination and anti-vilification legislation. In some jurisdictions, these civil remedies have been extended to criminal codes and sentencing legislation, and enshrined in human rights charters. In the place of a comprehensive outline of each of the nine jurisdictions, case studies from throughout the region are presented as exemplars of the strategies employed and barriers faced in reducing prejudice-related violence.

The differences between the Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions belies a common theme that frames the delay in developing legislative responses to hate crime and the paucity of cases to reach the point at which they begin to establish an agreed set of norms and values about the abhorrence of prejudice and hatred. At most turns—whether political or public rhetoric, or legislative and policy development - there is a frontier denial, minimisation and negation of prejudice and hatred.

The implications of jail time discounting for court sentences

Specific and marginal general deterrence are being increasingly discredited as useful sentencing objectives. One reason is that offenders discount jail time, sometimes quite substantially. As a consequence, there is a significant difference between the court's sentence and the effective penalty. The latter is the offender's perceived duration of the time in jail. Discount rates, which perhaps can be thought of as a measure of acclimatisation to the prison experience, potentially weaken considerably the likelihood of successfully attaining the objective of specific deterrence. In addition, since jail time discount rates increase as the sentence length increases, punishment burden increases less than proportionately. This means that successfully achieving marginal deterrence is even more problematical. Using New South Wales data for three different offences, mean estimates of jail time discount rates are obtained, and then used to adjust downwards court sentences and estimate their effective equivalents. Effective sentence elasticities are then computed to gauge the impact of sentence doubling. Very low values are obtained. The critical implications for sentencing suggested by this study are, first, that absolute general deterrence and specific deterrence are realistic sentencing objectives. Marginal deterrence, however, does not seem to be attainable, given the ubiquity of positive time preference. Secondly, subject to the proportionality constraint, relatively shorter sentences are likely to be more punitive than longer ones, and therefore more effective as specific deterrents.

In defence of parole : why parole is essential to community safety

This article discusses recent moves to make parole harder to obtain for prisoners serving sentences, and explains why this is disastrous and counter-productive to public safety

The Mengistu genocide trial in Ethiopia

This article analyses the sentencing judgment issued on 11 January 2007 bythe Ethiopian Federal High Court in the case of Mengistu Hailemariam andhis co-accused who had been tried, among others, on charges of genocide andcrimes against humanity. This was the first African trial where an entire regimewas brought to justice before a national court for atrocities committed while inpower. Twenty-five of the 55 accused found guilty, including Mengistu, were triedin absentia (Mengistu remains in exile in Zimbabwe). The trial took 12 years,making it one of the longest ever trials for genocide. In December 2006, Mengistuwas convicted by majority vote of genocide and crimes against humanity pursuant toArticle 281of the1957 Ethiopian Penal Code, which includes ‘political groups’amongthe groups protected against genocide. A dissenting judge took the position that theaccused should have been convicted of aggravated homicide because the relevant part of the provision had been repealed. A few weeks later, the Court, by majority,sentenced the top tier of the accused to life imprisonment, taking into accountcertain extenuating circumstances. If not for these, the death penalty would havebeen imposed. In addition to ensuring some accountability, the judgmentis important for providing an official and detailed account of what happenedin those years in Ethiopia under Mengistu’s reign. Given that in Ethiopia there areno official gazettes where court judgments are published, it is unlikely that the publicwill be able to read the judgment and thus become aware of what had happened.In addition to analysing the reasoning of the court, this article also looks intothe prevailing political circumstances in the country and reflects upon the trialand the reception that this important decision has had, and will receive, in thewider community.

Feminist challenges to the constraints of law : donning uncomfortable robes?

Legal judgment writing mobilises a process of story-telling, drawing on existing judicial discourses, precedents and practices to create a narrative relevant to the specific case that is articulated by the presiding judge. In the Feminist Judgments projects feminist scholars and activists have sought to challenge and reinterpret legal judgments that have disadvantaged, discriminated against or denied women’s experiences. This paper reflects on the process of writing as a feminist judge in the Australian Project, in an intimate homicide case, R v Middendorp. Drawing on the work of Judith Butler on intelligibility, iterability and the communality of violence and vulnerability, this article argues that feminist judgments necessarily require some uncomfortable compromises with unjust gendered institutions. While ‘donning the robes’ may be an uncomfortable process, a feminist re-articulation of the law’s carceral power serves to unsettle and challenge some aspects of gendered oppression, even though it cannot unsettle the operation of the institution. The article concludes that effective feminist interventions by members of the judiciary may require donning robes that are not entirely comfortable in order to persuade and advocate for change.