NCJ Number
96370
Journal
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology Volume: 17 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1984) Pages: 133-148
Date Published
1984
Length
16 pages
Annotation
Although sentencing gives meaning to the entire criminal justice system, it is not being given proper attention by the Australian public, government, and judicial officers. Major problems include insufficient statistical data and judicial officers' reluctance to depart from established ways.
Abstract
Australian courts dealing with criminal matters essentially are sentencing courts, since conviction rates are high and a majority of defendants plead guilty. While the legislatures establish the basic framework for sentencing, the individual judicial officer has wide discretion. The government's performance in the sentencing area has been characterized by short-term political expediency, excessive concern with administrative convenience and budgets, and failure to address the basic issues of principle and fairness. For instance, thousands of people are jailed for not paying fines, but the government has not tried to relate the fine to a person's ability to pay. To reduce congestion in the higher courts, some governments have increased the jurisdiction of the courts of summary jurisdiction, but failed to set down any principles to ensure consistency. Judicial officers not only determine the actual sentence, but also formulate the system's philosophies and debate whether a sentence's objective is to reduce crime or merely express society's disapproval of certain conduct. Finally, governments have not seriously explored the potential benefits of criminology training for judicial officers. The sentencing process could be improved by statistical studies on sentencing disparity and the impact of sentencing alternatives, along with judicial officers' pressuring the government for reform. The article includes 53 footnotes.