TY - BOOK
T1 - Mandatory Sentencing
AU - Hoel, Adrian
AU - Gelb, Karen
N1 - © Copyright State of Victoria, Sentencing Advisory Council, August 2008. This publication is protected by the laws of copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth).
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - Sentencing Matters is a new series of incidental research papers prepared by members of the secretariat of the Sentencing Advisory Council as part of the Council's statutory function of conducting research and disseminating information on sentencing matters. Mandatory Sentencing is the first in the series and has been authored by Dr Adrian Hoel, Legal Policy Officer, and Dr Karen Gelb, Senior Criminologist. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council or its individual members. Mandatory sentencing is a controversial issue that creates significant debate and divisions both in the community and in government. It has been implemented, in Australia and around the world, in various forms including 'three strikes' legislation and, in an attenuated form, as presumptive minimum sentences and standard non-parole periods. The goal of these legislative initiatives has been to increase consistency in sentencing and to improve public confidence in the courts by ensuring that sentences properly reflect community views. Periodically calls arise for the introduction of mandatory sentences in Victoria. This research paper examines what mandatory sentencing is and considers how mandatory sentencing fits within a spectrum of sentencing schemes, ranging from wholly discretionary systems and structured discretionary systems through systems with standard minimum non-parole periods to systems with greater degrees of prescription. The purpose of the paper is to consider the aims of mandatory sentencing, and to assess whether various schemes that have been adopted elsewhere have been successful in achieving those aims. The paper also examines the economic and social costs of mandatory sentencing. The paper concludes, on the basis of existing research, that mandatory and other prescriptive schemes are unlikely to achieve their aims. To the extent that such schemes achieve some of their aims, the research indicates that they are achieved at a high economic and social cost.
AB - Sentencing Matters is a new series of incidental research papers prepared by members of the secretariat of the Sentencing Advisory Council as part of the Council's statutory function of conducting research and disseminating information on sentencing matters. Mandatory Sentencing is the first in the series and has been authored by Dr Adrian Hoel, Legal Policy Officer, and Dr Karen Gelb, Senior Criminologist. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council or its individual members. Mandatory sentencing is a controversial issue that creates significant debate and divisions both in the community and in government. It has been implemented, in Australia and around the world, in various forms including 'three strikes' legislation and, in an attenuated form, as presumptive minimum sentences and standard non-parole periods. The goal of these legislative initiatives has been to increase consistency in sentencing and to improve public confidence in the courts by ensuring that sentences properly reflect community views. Periodically calls arise for the introduction of mandatory sentences in Victoria. This research paper examines what mandatory sentencing is and considers how mandatory sentencing fits within a spectrum of sentencing schemes, ranging from wholly discretionary systems and structured discretionary systems through systems with standard minimum non-parole periods to systems with greater degrees of prescription. The purpose of the paper is to consider the aims of mandatory sentencing, and to assess whether various schemes that have been adopted elsewhere have been successful in achieving those aims. The paper also examines the economic and social costs of mandatory sentencing. The paper concludes, on the basis of existing research, that mandatory and other prescriptive schemes are unlikely to achieve their aims. To the extent that such schemes achieve some of their aims, the research indicates that they are achieved at a high economic and social cost.
UR - http://handle.uws.edu.au:8081/1959.7/561035
UR - https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/publications/mandatory-sentencing-research-paper
M3 - Research report
SN - 9781921100260
BT - Mandatory Sentencing
PB - Sentencing Advisory Council
CY - Melbourne, Vic.
ER -