NCJ Number
105977
Date Published
1987
Length
11 pages
Annotation
This critique of the Wilkins' empirically based descriptive sentencing guidelines and the Minnesota sentencing guidelines deems them inappropriate for the Australian sentencing system. Elements of an alternative model for quantifying sentencing are proposed.
Abstract
Wilkins' empirically-based descriptive sentencing guidelines are derived from the application of multiple regression to actual case data to identify, weight, and combine the major independent case factors related to sentences. One difficulty with this approach is that some assumptions underlying multiple regression are inconsistent with the complexities of judicial thought. The Minnesota Sentencing guidelines use a two dimensional grid based in offense seriousness and the offender's criminal history. This system is unsatisfactory for Australian courts because it does not address how information about cases ought to be combined. A sentencing model appropriate for Australian courts should be a faithful representation of the structure of judicial thought, incorporate most of the case factors encompassed in legal analyses of sentencing judgments, and implement the sentencing rules for combining case information promulgated in Australian appellate decisions. The latter principles are a detailed statistical description of current sentencing practice and assistance in moving toward uniformity of judicial approach in sentencing. 20 references.