Sentencing of male and female child sex offenders : Australian study

Research suggests that, in line with the chivalry hypothesis of female offending, a range of mitigatory factors such as mental health problems, substance abuse, and personal experiences of abuse are brought into play when women who offend against children are brought to trial. This is reflected in sentencing comments made by judges and in the sanctions imposed on the offenders, and as a result female offenders are treated differently to male offenders. The current study investigated this in an Australian context. Seven cases of female-perpetrated child sexual abuse were identified over a 6-year period through the Austlii database. Seven cases of male-perpetrated child sex abuse matched as far as possible to these were identified. Court transcripts were then located, and sentencing comments and sanctions imposed were analysed. All offenders were sentenced to imprisonment, but in general the women were more likely than the men to receive less jail time and lower non-parole periods because their personal backgrounds or situation at the time of the offending (i.e., difficulties with intimate relationship, male dependence issues, depression, loneliness and anger) were perceived as worthy of sympathy, and they were considered as likely to be rehabilitated. Further investigations are needed to support these findings.

Sentencing pathways for offenders in Victoria : clinical influences and considerations

This portfolio aims to review aspects of the sentencing of violent offenders under Victoria's criminal justice system. Focuses on a critique of current legislation, the way the rights of special needs offenders are acknowledged and enshrined in law, how these provisions are expressed in practice, and the clinical factors that contribute to, and influence, the dispositions individuals receive.

The capacity of criminal sanctions to shape the behaviour of offenders : specific deterrence doesn’t work, rehabilitation might and the implications for sentencing

There is a considerable gap between the law and knowledge regarding the efficacy of state-imposed sanctions to achieve several key sentencing objectives. Two sentencing objectives which often carry considerable weight in the sentencing calculus are rehabilitation and specific deterrence, despite the fact that neither has been proven to be attainable. This article examines the empirical data on whether specific deterrence and rehabilitation are attainable, and consequently whether they should be retained or abolished as sentencing objectives.

Tough, tougher, toughest? A new government’s approach to sentencing laws in Victoria

When in opposition, Victoria¹s Liberal/National coalition made a number of commitments to be 'tough on crime'. After winning the 2010 state election, the Government arguably reformed sentencing laws more quickly and more substantially in its first year of office than any other area of policy, with several key initiatives delivered or in train.

The Victorian experience exemplifies fast and forceful responses to perceived risks to community safety by new Australian Governments. While some political leaders have decried the 'law and order auction' approach by political parties, it remains a real tool in political discourse.

Some of these initiatives appear inconsistent with fundamental sentencing principles, and are designed more to address public perceptions which are disconnected from the realities of criminality and incidence of offending. A more appropriate basis for criminal justice policy may require Government to prioritise addressing the causes of offending behavior, rather than penalising consequences.

An argument for uniform Australian sentencing law

Sentencing law and practice impacts on fundamental individual interests, both from the perspective of offenders and victims. It also affects community safety and security The scope of sentencing law and its principal objectives are broadly similar throughout Australia. However, there are many important differences, especially in relation to sentencing practice, with some jurisdictions appearing to impose considerably heavier penalties for certain offence types. This article argues that uniform sentencing law should be implemented throughout Australia. The likely benefits would extend beyond achieving greater consistency in sentencing outcomes. A move toward uniform national sentencing laws would provide the catalyst for an objective, evidence-based review of sentencing policy and practice, thereby providing a vehicle for harmonising the law with a wealth of empirical data regarding the objectives that can be achieved through a system of state-imposed sanctions. It would also present a meaningful opportunity for a normative assessment of the justifiable operation of sentencing law. The main impediment to uniform sentencing laws is likely to come from state and territory governments seeking to maintain control over this often socially controversial area as a means of securing and maintaining community support. However, this obstacle is not necessarily insurmountable. It is not clear whether sentencing policy is, in fact, a main driver of voter preferences. Some politicians may prefer to have ·national uniformity' as a buffer to counteract reflexive calls for tougher sentencing that often occur following particularly serious crimes or seemingly light sentences handed down by courts.

Injecting content into the mirage that is proportionality in sentencing

Sentencing involves the deliberate infliction of harm by society on individuals. It is the most coercive means through which the community imposes its collective (albeit civilised) displeasure at harmful conduct. It is an important and complex process, which involves balancing fundamental interests of victims and the community on the one hand and offenders on the other. The single most important determinant in setting criminal sanctions is the principle of proportionality, which provides that the harshness of the penalty should match the seriousness of the offence. The principle is intuitively appealing but in reality is an illusion, and hence the reason why penalties for criminal offences vary enormously within and across jurisdictions. The main reason is because there is no agreement regarding the considerations that inform offence severity or sanction hardship. This article injects content into the proportionality principle by suggesting that both limbs of the principle should be informed by the extent to which the crime and the sanction set back the well-being of victims and offenders, respectively. These interests are not conclusively mapped. However, a methodology is set out for establishing these interests. This will lead to greater consistency in sentencing and provide a sounder, normative foundation for the manner in which society deals with criminals.

“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.