Mandatory sentencing : a criminological perspective

This paper will give a ‘criminological perspective’ on mandatory sentencing. It will however largely avoid the issues of the effect of mandatory sentencing provisions on the judicial process and judicial independence, as this has already been covered by Sir Anthony Mason. It will also avoid the legal issues concerning the constitutional, human rights and international law aspects of mandatory sentencing which will be covered by later speakers. The aim will be to give a brief overview of research which evaluates the effects of mandatory sentencing provisions in terms of the available evidence of whether they meet their stated aims of deterrence, selective incapacitation and the reduction of crime rates. This will be done in two parts, first in relation to the more extensive experiment in mandatory sentencing in the USA which has provided some of the impetus and metaphors ("three strikes") for recent Australian developments; and second the recent mandatory sentencing provisions in Western Australia (WA) and the Northern Territory (NT). Evidence from both the US and WA (NT is hard to assess because of the lack of proper monitoring and criminal statistics) indicates that mandatory sentencing does not produce the effects of deterrence, selective incapacitation and crime reduction which are its stated justifications and does produce a range of damaging side effects in terms of distortion of the judicial process, wildly disproportionate sentencing, additional financial and social cost and deepening social exclusion of individuals and particular communities. So what is left are the less acknowledged underpinnings of mandatory sentencing in the form of the symbolic politics of law and order, the politics of social exclusion and a displacement of racial anxieties and hostilities onto the terrain of the legal. In fashioning this necessarily brief overview a number of sources have been heavily drawn upon, in particular the excellent work by Neil Morgan from UWA (Morgan, 1995;1999; 2000); Dianne Johnson and George Zdenkowski in their detailed report to the Senate Inquiry (2000); and a number of articles appearing in 1999 in an excellent special issue of the UNSW Law Journal, all of which are highly recommended for further reading.

Measuring the effects of small group deliberation on public attitudes towards sentencing : benefits and challenges

This article reports on the outcomes of small group deliberations on levels of punitiveness and public confidence in the sentencing functions of Australian criminal courts, conducted as part of a larger project investigating public attitudes to sentencing. One hypothesis of the project as a whole was that a more informed and involved public is likely to be less punitive in their views on the sentencing of offenders, and to express less cynical views about the role of sentencing courts. The aim of the small group deliberations as part of the broader project was to engender a more thoughtful and considered approach by participants to issues around sentencing. It was hypothesised that the opportunity to discuss, deliberate and consider would lead to a measurable reduction in punitiveness and an increase in people’s confidence in the courts. While the results do indeed indicate such changes in attitudes, the current study also shed light on some of the conceptual, methodological and practical challenges inherent in this type of research.

Sentencing and public confidence in Australia: The dynamics and foci of small group deliberations

This study is the first of its kind in Australia to use the deliberative small group methodology to explore participants’ deeper, nuanced thoughts on specific criminal justice issues in order to gain insight into the underlying beliefs that influence people’s opinions on sentencing. The use of small group discussions allows an analysis of the dynamics of people’s interactions and the potential of these to elicit deeper, more thoughtful deliberation. Participants’ comments around two policy areas – mandatory sentencing and the use of alternatives to imprisonment – were founded on concerns about the need for judges to tailor the sentence to fit the specific circumstances of each case. The methodology itself has shown that people may change their initial opinions on complex issues when given the opportunity to discuss and reflect on their beliefs.

‘Structuring’ judicial sentencing discretion : consistency, guidance or pandering to the punitive?

Until quite recently, most Australian jurisdictions gave statutory force to the principle of imprisonment as a sanction of last resort, reflecting its status as the most punitive sentencing option open to the court.1 That principle gave primary discretion as to whether incarceration was the most appropriate means of achieving the purpose of a sentence to the sentencing court, which received all of the information relevant to the offence, the offender and any victim(s). The disestablishment of this principle is symptomatic of an increasing erosion of judicial discretion with respect to sentencing, which appears to be resulting in some extremely punitive consequences.

‘Not a criminal in the classic sense': @DrRimmer on the sentencing of Jono Moylan #leardblockade #standwithjono

On July 25, 2014, Justice David Davies sentenced Jonathan Moylan at the Supreme Court of New South Wales for a breach of section 1041E (1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The ruling is a careful and deliberate decision, showing equipoise. Justice Davies has a reputation for being a thoughtful and philosophical adjudicator. The judge convicted and sentenced Moylan to imprisonment for 1 year and 8 months. The judge ordered that Moylan be “immediately released upon giving security by way of recognisance in the sum of $1000 to be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years commencing today”.

There is 'hope for you yet': The female drug offender in sentencing discourse

Language and gender research has, in recent years, emphasised the importance of examining the context-specific ways in which people ‘do gender’ in different situations. In this paper, we explore how women involved in drug offences, specifically methamphetamine manufacture offences, are constructed within the language of the courts. Thirty-six sentencing transcripts from the New Zealand courts were examined to investigate how such offences, committed by women, are understood. In order to explore the representation of female offenders, a critical discourse analytic approach was adopted. Such an approach recognises that linguistic modes not only create and legitimise power inequalities but also embody a specific worldview. Three gendered discourses were identified in the sentencing texts: (i) the discourse of femininity, reinforcing the socially prescribed female role; (ii) the discourse of aberration, concerning women who breach traditional gender role expectations, and; (iii) the discourse of salvation, presenting aberrant women with an opportunity to become ‘good’ women once again. The findings illustrate the ways in which processes of gendering take place within a specific community of practice: the courtroom.

Sentencing War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

null RAE2008

Victim impact reports in Northern Ireland: Victims’ voices influencing sentencing?

Discusses three Northern Ireland Court of Appeal decisions concerning the role of victim impact reports (VIRs) on sentencing in sexual violence cases, and illustrating how courts may be unable to rely on victims' accounts of the harm they suffered because the experts' reports were unreliable. Details key features of the cases, the use of VIRs as evidence-based harm, and why improved guidance on their use is needed in Northern Ireland.

Bridging the Conceptualization of Youth with Intellectual Disabilities to Sentencing under the YCJA

The current study examined how disability and the concepts of risk, need and responsivity are understood by criminal justice professionals and inform their perceptions of young offenders with ID at sentencing under the ‘different but equal’ philosophy. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 lawyers and 8 mental health workers across 6 major urban areas in Ontario. Participants primarily perceived ID through a medical discourse, overlooking social and structural barriers that, in some cases, may hinder adherence to sentencing dispositions. Specifically, participants discussed balancing the reduced culpability of offenders (e.g., intent) – justifying lenient sentencing – with public safety concerns (i.e., ID viewed as a barrier to rehabilitation) – justifying increasing the severity of sentences. Participants assessed clients with ID and their risks, needs and responsivity within the context of other legal factors: criminal history, severity of the offence, and YCJA objectives. Participants articulated the importance of tailored courthouse identification programs, services/funding, and education/training.

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.