Why sentence? Comparing the views of jurors, judges and the legislature on the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, Australia (original) (raw)
Related papers
Purposes of Sentencing: Community Views in Victoria
This report is the second in a series on community views about crime, courts and sentencing. It presents evidence of the views of a random sample of 300 Victorians about the purposes of sentencing. The report shows that views on the purposes of sentencing are complex and nuanced. Participants in this study do not focus solely on punishment as a purpose of sentencing, but also see rehabilitation as an important purpose of sentencing in certain instances. These findings show that people rate prior offending as a significant aggravating factor. Indeed, members of the community who responded to this survey clearly appreciate the complexities of sentencing for different types of offender and offence. This appreciation and understanding has important implications for sentencers. Judges and magistrates are required to balance the various purposes of sentencing for every offender who comes before them. At the same time, they have to consider community concerns and expectations of what sente...
Criminology & Criminal Justice, 2020
A plea of guilty is a long-accepted factor mitigating sentence in many countries, including Australia, although academic debate over the merits and application of the discount is ongoing. This paper presents findings from a national Australian study on public opinion on the guilty plea sentencing discount, with a particular focus on sexual offences. Survey data were drawn from 989 jurors in cases that resulted in a guilty verdict and 450 unempanelled jurors and 306 online respondents who were provided with vignettes based on real cases. A third of the respondents would have supported a discount in their case if the offender had pleaded guilty. In contrast, more than one half of the respondents surveyed, who had received a vignette with a guilty plea scenario, supported an increment in sentence if the offender had gone to trial. There was more support for a discount in cases involving non-sexual violent offences versus sexual offences and adult versus child victims. Where a discount ...
In 2004, the Office of the Victorian Attorney General released the Justice Statement Part I, which outlined a ten-year plan to modernise Victoria’s criminal justice system. A key initiative emerging from this idealistic reform agenda involved a sentence indication scheme for indictable offences, on the basis that it would increase clearance rates; thus in theory, benefiting all parties. In line with the recommendations of a report compiled by the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council (VSAC) in 2007, a pilot sentence indication trial commenced in the County and Supreme Courts, with the sunset clause that it be evaluated after two years and either fully integrated into legislation or abolished (Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) ss 208–9, s 384). In February 2010, the VSAC released its evaluative report recommending the scheme be maintained in its current form. This paper critically analyses some potential flaws in the arguments of the VSAC report, with a particular focus on the ineffectiveness of the scheme, and its potential to result in unjust outcomes.