Research in England, USA and Australia has found that pre-sentence reports may produce gender and race biases which can have a direct effect on sentencing, thus contributing to the over-representation of black and indigenous offenders and the under-representation of women in the criminal justice system. Since 1985 in New Zealand, pre-sentence reports have become an increasingly important feature of the criminal justice system because of expanded community-based penalties which are administered by the Probation Service and for which a fuller report is required. This paper examined the use of the pre-sentence report in the sentencing process in the Wellington District Court to establish if gender and race biases were evident. A sample of 152 pre-sentence reports were examined and the major findings did not agree with previous research. In terms of race, few differences were found between the way in which Maori (New Zealand's indigenous people) and Pakeha (European New Zealanders) were dealt with in this court. However, significant gender differences were apparent in the choice of community-based sentence imposed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenH. (1987). Justice unbalanced. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
2.
DalyK. (1994). Gender, crime and punishment. New Haven: Yale University Press.
3.
DowdsL.HeddermanC. (1997). The sentencing of men and women. InHeddermanC.GelsthorpeL.(eds.), Understanding the Sentencing of Women. London: Home Office Research Study No. 170.
4.
EatonM. (1986). Justice for women? Family, court and social control. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
5.
EdwardsA. (1989). Sex gender, sexism and criminal justice: Some theoretical considerations. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 17, 165–184.
6.
FarringtonD.MorrisA. (1983). Sex, sentencing and reconviction. British Journal of Criminology, 23, 229–248.
7.
FrazierC. E.BockE. W. (1982). Effects of court officials on sentence severity: Do judges make a difference?Criminology, 20, 257–272.
8.
GelsthorpeL. (1992). Social inquiry reports: Race and gender considerations.
9.
Gt Britain. Home Office Research and Statistics Department. Research Bulletin, no. 32.
10.
GelsthorpeL. (1993). Race and gender considerations in social enquiry reports, Summary report of research carried out by the London School of Economics, April, 1989 – March, 1991. Unpublished.
11.
GelsthorpeL.LoucksN. (1997). Magistrates' explanations of sentencing decisions. InHeddermanC.GelsthorpeL.(eds.), Understanding the Sentencing of Women. London: Home Office Research Study No. 170.
12.
GelsthorpeL.RaynorP. (1995). Quality and effectiveness in probation officers' reports to sentencers, British Journal of Criminology, 35, 188–200.
13.
GreenR. (1989). Probation and the black offender, New Community, 16, 81–91.
14.
HaganJ. (1977). Criminal justice in rural and urban communities: A study of the bureaucratization of justice, Social Forces, 55, 597–611.
15.
HaganJ.BumillerK. (1983). Making sense of sentencing: A review and critique of sentencing research. InBlumsteinA., . (eds.), Research on Sentencing: The Search for Reform. Vol 2. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16.
HallG.G. (1987). Sentencing in New Zealand. Wellington: Butterworths.
17.
HeidensohnF. (1985). Women and Crime. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
18.
HoodR. (1992). Race and Sentencing: A study in the Crown Court. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
19.
HudsonB. (1992). Penal policy and racial justice. InGelsthorpeL.(ed.), Minority Ethnic Groups in the Criminal Justice System. Cropwood Conference series no. 21. University of Cambridge: Institute of Criminology.
20.
JacksonM. (1988). The Maori and the criminal justice system. A new perspective: He Whaipaanga Hou, Part 2. Wellington: Department of Justice.
21.
JacksonH.SmithL. (1987). Female offenders: An analysis of social enquiry reports. Home Office Research Bulletin no. 23, 8–11.
22.
MairG. (1986). Ethnic minorities, probation and the magistrates' courts: A pilot study, British Journal of Criminology, 26, 147–155.
23.
MairG.BrockingtonN. (1988). Female offenders and the probation service, The Howard Journal, 27, 117–126.
24.
MorrisA. (1988). Sex and sentencing, Criminal Law Review, 163–171.
25.
NagelI.HagenJ. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions, InTonryM.MorrisN.(eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research, 4, 91–144.
26.
New Zealand Department of Justice (1954). Criminal Justice Act 1954. Wellington: Government Printer.
27.
New Zealand Department of Justice (1985) Criminal Justice Act 1985. Wellington: Government Printer.
28.
Penal Policy Review Committee, Report (1981). Wellington: Government Printer.
29.
PetersillaJ. (1985). Racial disparities in the criminal justice system: A summary, Crime and Delinquency, 31, 15–34.
30.
OzolsE. (1993). Pre-sentence reports and A.T.S.I's, Contrasts, 3, 3–7. Sydney: Probation and Parole Officers' Association of N.S.W.
31.
RushC.RobertsonJ. (1987). Pre-sentence reports: The utility of information to the sentencing decision, Law and Human Behaviour, 11.
32.
ShadboltM. (1990). Court Reports: A Study. Auckland: University of Auckland.
33.
ShaplandJ. (1987). Who controls sentencing? Influences on the sentencer. InPenningtonD.C.Lloyd-BostockS.(eds.), The Psychology of Sentencing. Oxford: Centre for Socio-legal studies.
34.
ThorpeJ.PeaseK. (1976). The relationship between recommendations made to the court and sentences passed, British Journal of Criminology, 16, 393–394.
35.
VoakesR.FowlerQ. (1989). Sentencing, race and social inquiry reports. West Yorkshire: Bradford DivisionProbation Service,.
36.
WilkieM. (1993). Sentencing Women: Pre-sentence Reports and the Construction of Female Offenders. University of Western Australia: Crime Research Centre. Research report no. 9.
37.
WhitehouseP. (1983). Race, bias and S.E.R., Probation Journal, 30, 43–49.
38.
WorrallA. (1981). Out of place: Female offenders in court, Probation Journal, 28, 90–93.
39.
ZatzM.S. (1987). The changing forms of racial/ethnic biases in sentencing, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 69–92.
