Search

In recent times, parliaments have introduced legislation directing judges to take defined purposes into account when sentencing. At the same time, judges and politicians also acknowledge that sentencing should vindicate the values of the community. This article compares the views on the purposes of sentencing of three major participants in the criminal justice system: legislators who pass sentencing statutes, judges who impose and justify sentences and jurors who represent the community. A total of 987 Australian jurors in the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study (2013–2015) were asked to sentence the offender in their trial and to choose the purpose that best justified the sentence. The judges' sentencing remarks were coded and the results were compared with the jurors' surveys. The research shows that, in this jurisdiction, the views of the judges, the jurors and the legislators are not always well aligned. Judges relied on general deterrence much more than jurors and jurors selected incapacitation as the primary purpose in only about a fifth of 'serious offender' cases where parliament has provided that community protection must be the principal purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mental disorder, intellectual disability, intoxication and drug addiction are factors that are often raised in sentencing hearings, but the effect that these four conditions can have on an offender's sentence is rarely studied. This article fills two gaps in our understanding of the relevance of these ambiguous sentencing factors: first, by analysing how judges in the County Court of Victoria responded to these factors in 122 sentencing cases relating to 140 sentenced offenders; and second, by comparing the views of the judges with those of 426 jurors who had tried those cases and who participated in the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study. It concludes that lay opinion on the relevance of these factors does not always align with judicial practice and discusses the implications of these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reports the findings of the first study in Australia to compare the responses of judges and jurors in 122 real cases who were asked to identify the appropriate relevance and weight that should be given to some of the most commonly listed aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The research reveals that, while jurors and judges in Victoria are alike in giving more weight to aggravating factors than mitigating factors and in supporting an individualised approach to sentencing, jurors give less weight than judges to some mitigating factors, including good character, being a first offender, youth, old age and physical illness. Jurors also adopted broader interpretations of aggravating factors like breach of trust and the relevance of prior convictions. They also preferred a different rationale for discounting sentences due to family hardship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents the results of the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study which aimed to measure jurors’ views on sentencing. The study asked jurors who had returned a guilty verdict to propose a sentence for the offender, to comment on the sentence given by the judge in their case and to give their opinions on general sentencing levels for different offence types. A total of 987 jurors from 124 criminal trials in the County Court of Victoria participated in this mixed-method and multi-phased study in 2013–2015. The results are based on juror responses to the Stage One and Stage Two surveys and show that the views of judges and jurors are much more closely aligned than mass public opinion surveys would suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preferences of 800 randomly selected Australians for retributive and utilitarian sentencing purposes were examined in response to brief crime scenarios where offender age, offence type and offender history were systematically varied. Respondents selected rehabilitation as the most important purpose for first-time, young and burglary offenders. Punishment was endorsed as most important for repeat, adult and serious assault offenders. Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that offence history was a stronger predictor of public preferences than offender age or offence type; the odds of choosing rehabilitation compared with punishment were significantly increased by a factor of 6.1 for cases involving first-time offenders. It appears that when given specific cases to consider, the public takes an approach akin to that taken by the sentencing courts as they weigh up the importance of the various purposes for the case at hand. Public preferences are thus broadly consistent with current law and sentencing practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the critical issue of public confidence in sentencing, and presents findings from Phase I of an Australia-wide sentencing and public confidence project. Phase I comprised a nationally representative telephone survey of 6005 participants. The majority of respondents expressed high levels of punitiveness and were dissatisfied with sentences imposed by the courts. Despite this, many were strongly supportive of the use of alternatives to imprisonment for a range of offences. These nuanced views raise questions regarding the efficacy of gauging public opinion using opinion poll style questions; indeed the expected outcome from this first phase of the four phase sentencing and public confidence project. The following phases of this project, reported on elsewhere, examined the effects of various interventions on the robustness and nature of these views initially expressed in a standard ‘top of the head’ opinion poll. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Changes to sentencing legislation are often introduced or justified on the basis of satisfying public opinion. If sentencing policy is a reflection of public opinion we should see a concordance between different sentencing policies and public opinion. This paper provides a comparison between Australian States and Territories in terms of two key measures of public attitude concerning sentencing: confidence in sentencing and punitiveness. These results are based on acomprehensive telephone survey (N = 6005) of Australian adults which utilized a stratified random sample of households from the Electronic White Pages. It was found that there were only minor differences in the key measures of public attitude despite the notable differences between the States and Territories of Australia with respect to sentencing policy. Differences in public attitudes across jurisdictions were small, accounting for less than 2 per cent of variation in confidence in sentencing and punitive attitudes scores. In addition, despite the predicted moderately negative association between confidence in sentencing and punitiveness, neither of these variables was related in any systematic way to jurisdictional differences in imprisonment rates. The major implication of these findings is that the wide differences in sentencing practice and policy between jurisdictions in Australia are not linked to differences in public attitudes, supporting Beckett's (1997) argument that sentencing policy is better understood as a function of political initiative rather than a direct articulation of public attitude. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]