Excessive criminal punishment amounts to punishing the innocent : an argument for taking the parsimony principle seriously

Punishing the innocent is incontestably repugnant. Punishing offenders more harshly than is justified is a form of punishing the innocent, yet this practice is commonplace in the United States. This Article sets out a normative argument in favor of less severe penalties for many forms of offenses. There is already an established principle, which limits punishment to the minimum amount of hardship that is required to achieve the objectives of sentencing. The principle is termed “parsimony” and is widely endorsed. Yet, in reality, it is illusory. It has no firm content and in its current form is logically and jurisprudentially incapable of grounding a persuasive argument for more lenient sentences. This Article gives content to the principle of parsimony. It is argued that application of the principle will result in a considerable reduction in the number of offenders who are sentenced to imprisonment and shorter sentences for many offenders who are jailed. The recommendations in this Article will enhance the fairness and transparency of the sentencing system. The argument is especially important at this point in history. The United States is experiencing an incarceration crisis. The principle of parsimony, properly applied, is an important key to ameliorating the incarceration problem. The Article also examines the operation of the parsimony principle in Australia. Unlike sentencing courts in the United States, Australian judges enjoy considerable discretion in sentencing offenders. Despite the vastly different approach to sentencing in Australia, it too is experiencing a considerable increase in the incarceration rate. It emerges that the courts in a tightly regimented sentencing regime (the United States) and a mainly discretionary system (Australia) effectively ignored the parsimony principle. It is not the strictures in the United States that curtail the imposition of parsimonious sentences; rather, it is the absence of a forceful rationale underpinning the principle and a lack of clarity regarding the attainable objectives of sentencing. This Article addresses these shortcomings. In doing so, it paves the way for fundamentally fairer sentencing outcomes in the United States and Australia.

‘Cemented in their cells’: a human rights analysis of Blessington, Elliott and the life imprisonment of children in New South Wales

In 2010, two Australians, convicted in childhood of rape and murder, lodged a joint submission with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming that successive changes to sentencing legislation in New South Wales breached their human rights by denying them any meaningful prospect of release. In this article, we examine the political, legislative and procedural moves that have resulted in Australian children being sentenced to life without parole or release. We argue that successive legislative changes in various Australian jurisdictions have resulted in a framework for sentencing decisions that is considerably out of step with international legal standards for criminal justice. These increasingly punitive legislative changes exacerbate Australia’s already declining record of cooperation with UN processes, and reveal Australia’s reluctance to respect the legitimacy and authority of international law. Against this troubling context, the views of the Human Rights Committee serve as a much-needed reminder about the importance of a principled approach to child sentencing that forecloses neither the goal of rehabilitation nor the prospect of release and reintegration.

A rational (unapologetically pragmatic) approach to dealing with the irrational - the setencing of offenders with mental disorders

People with mental impairment are so heavily over-represented in prisons and jails that jails have been labeled “warehouses for the mentally ill.” In many parts of the United States, there are more mentally impaired offenders in prisons than in hospitals for the mentally unwell. Offenders laboring with impaired mental functioning are often regarded as being less morally culpable for their crimes and hence less deserving of punishment. However, the reduced mental functioning of offenders does not diminish the harm caused to victims. People are no less dead if mentally unwell offenders kill them rather than offenders who are mentally sound. This tension has proven an intractable problem for sentencing law and practice. There are no clear, fair, and effective principles or processes for accommodating impaired mental functioning in the sentencing inquiry. It is an under-researched area of the law. In this Article, I explore this tension. Key to ascertaining the proper manner in which to incorporate mental illness into the sentencing system is clarity regarding the importance of consequences to the offender, as opposed to moral culpability. I analyze current approaches to sentencing offenders with mental health problems in both the United States and Australia. Despite the vastly different sentencing regimes in these countries, both systems are deficient in dealing with mentally ill offenders, but for different reasons. I propose a solution to administering sentences to offenders with a mental disorder that is equally applicable to both sentencing systems. Mental impairment should mitigate penalty. However, in determining the extent and circumstances in which it should do so, it is cardinal not to lose sight of the fact that those who are sentenced for a crime are not insane, and they were aware that their acts were wrong--otherwise they would not have been found guilty in the first instance. I argue that a standard ten percent sentencing discount should be accorded to offenders who were mentally disordered at the time of sentencing. There should be an even more substantial discount when it is likely that offenders will find the sanction--in particular imprisonment--more burdensome due to their mental state. This difference would ensure some recognition of the reduced blameworthiness of mentally impaired offenders and the extra hardship that some forms of punishment inflict on mentally *2 ill offenders, while not compromising the important objectives of proportionality and community protection. The only situations when mental disorder should not mitigate penalty are when the offender is a recidivist, serious sexual or violent offender. In these circumstances, the interests of the community are the paramount consideration. The analysis in this paper applies most directly when a term of imprisonment is imposed. However, the reasoning also extends to the threshold decision of whether or not a term of imprisonment should be imposed in the first place.

Mediação Penal e Justiça Restaurativa

Projeto de Graduação apresentado à Universidade Fernando Pessoa como parte dos requisitos para obtenção do grau de licenciada em Criminologia

Estudo comparativo de homens e mulheres em liberdade condicional e da influência do género nas decisões judiciais

Ainda hoje nos deparamos com diferenças acentuadas ao nível do género, sendo a sua influência na decisão judicial um dos contextos mais abordados, verificando-se um número mais elevado de estudos referente à decisão sentencial, em comparação à concessão da liberdade condicional. Procurando observar as diferenças entre homens e mulheres ao nível da decisão judicial, foram analisadas 140 decisões de indivíduos que iniciaram a liberdade condicional com acompanhamento da Direção Geral de Reinserção e Serviços Prisionais (DGRSP). Apesar do género não se ter constituído como preditor significativo da duração da pena ou da fase de concessão da liberdade condicional, foi possível apurar diferenças entre homens e mulheres, nomeadamente, o tipo de crime que levou à condenação e a presença e especialização de antecedentes criminais. Como preditores da duração da pena, verificou-se o número de crimes cometidos no presente, para ambos os grupos, e a especialização dos antecedentes para os homens. Relativamente à concessão da liberdade condicional, não foram encontradas diferenças significativas.

Out of Character? Legal responses to intimate partner homicides by men in Victoria 2005-2014

This report reviews 51 cases of intimate partner homicide by men in Victoria, from 2005-2014, to investigate how family violence is recognised in homicide prosecutions. Research and death reviews in Australia and overseas have found that systemic failures in legal responses to family violence contribute to intimate partner homicides. In 2010, Domestic Violence Resource Centre Victoria and Monash University began a project to explore the impact of the 2005 homicide law reforms on intimate partner homicides. The first phase of the project examined cases of women who killed their intimate partners, focusing on whether the reforms had improved the recognition of family violence victimisation as a factor. This report presents findings from the second phase, which examines legal responses to men who have killed in the context of sexual intimacy. In analysing the cases, it looks at key contextual factors, legal outcomes, family violence risk factors, how prior family violence is understood and discussed by legal professionals, how evidence of prior family violence is used by the prosecution and whether it is admitted as evidence, the types of arguments and narratives made in defence of the accused, the recognition of family violence through the sentencing process, and the use of provocation as a mitigating factor.

No prospect of release: Kevin Crump and the human rights implications of life imprisonment

A NSW court last week dismissed Kevin Crump’s latest appeal against his natural life sentence. Crump, who has served nearly 42 years in prison for murder, has been formally denied any prospect of a meaningful life outside prison walls.

The decision provides a timely opportunity to reconsider the viability of terms of life without parole. It further entrenches the use of terms of life without parole in Australia despite moves overseas to restrict – and in some cases eradicate – them.

Profile of inmates in institutional count (including inmates on authorized absence) as of June 30, 2016

These statistics break down SC inmate population characteristics. It is broken down by male and female, current age, race, marital status, sentencing data, education, leading most serious offenses, top five committing counties, medical classification and mental health classification.

El papel de la OEA en el establecimiento de los tribunales de tratamiento de drogas en Estados Unidos como mecanismo de reducción del daño (1989-2013)

La reducción de la demanda, específicamente por medios alternativos al sistema penal tradicional, ha sido uno de los componentes más discutidos en los análisis que abordan la lucha contra las drogas. Este artículo se propone determinar el papel de la Organización de Estados Americanos en el establecimiento de los Tribunales de Tratamiento de Drogas en Estados Unidos como mecanismo de reducción del daño en el periodo comprendido entre 1989 y 2013. Se sugiere que la organización internacional, a través de la CICAD, ha jugado un papel de promoción, y evaluación de los Tribunales de Tratamiento de Drogas en Estados Unidos, generando presión entre sus Estados miembro, dada la necesidad de instaurar alternativas legales de reducción del daño. Sin embargo, se presentan deficiencias en los mecanismos de evaluación, ya que las indicaciones realizadas no tienen un carácter obligatorio y por tanto las determinaciones de la CICAD no necesariamente son adoptadas.