Some ranking of the relative seriousness of criminal conduct for the purpose of allocating statutory penalties is needed. A number of different approaches are possible. This article examines those based on assessments of harm and culpability; analysis of current judicial sentencing practices; and public opinion research. It discusses problems inherent in each of these approaches. A combination of techniques is applied to some 500 Victorian offences, both serious and trivial, in order to produce a revised ranking of statutory offences for the purpose of rationalising their accompanying sanctions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AshworthA (1983) Sentencing and Penal Policy.
2.
Australia (1975) Report of the Working Party on Territorial Criminal Law.
3.
Australia (1988) Review of Commonwealth Criminal Law, PenaltiesDiscussion Paper No 18.
4.
Australian Law Reform Commission (1988) Sentencing Report No 44.
5.
Australia(1987) Sentencing: PenaltiesDiscussion Paper No 30.
6.
BedauH A (1984) “Classification-Based Sentencing: Some Conceptual and Ethical Problems” 10New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement1.
7.
Canada, Canadian Sentencing Commission (1987) Sentencing Reform: a Canadian Approach.
8.
DoobA NRobertsJ (1988) “Public Punitiveness and Public Knowledge of the Facts: Some Canadian Surveys” inWalkerNHoughM(eds)Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries.
9.
DouglasR (1988) “Rationalising Sentencing? The Victorian Sentencing Committee's Report” 12Criminal Law Journal327.
10.
FreibergAFoxR G (1986) “Sentencing Structures and Sentencing Hierarchies” 10Criminal Law Journal216.
11.
GottfredsonS DWarnerB DTaylorR B (1988) “Conflict and Consensus About Criminal Justice in Maryland” inWalkerNHoughM(eds)Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries.
12.
LeviMJonesS (1985) “Public and Police Perceptions of Crime Seriousness in England and Wales” 25British Journal of Criminology234.
13.
RadzinowiczLHoodR [1978] “A Dangerous Direction in Sentencing Reform” Criminal Law Review713.
14.
RossiP HHenryJ P (1980) “Seriousness: A Measure for all Purposes?” inKleinWTeilmanK S(eds)Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation.
15.
RossiP H et al (1974) “The Seriousness of Crimes: Normative Structure and Individual Differences” 39American Sociological Review224.
16.
South Australia, Criminal Law and Penal Methods Reform Committee (1977) Fourth Report: The Substantive Law.
17.
ThomsonD RRagonaA J (1987) “Popular Moderation Versus Governmental Authoritarianism: An Interactionist View of Public Sentiments Toward Criminal Sanctions” 33Crime and Delinquency337.
18.
TonryM H (1982) “Criminal Law: The Missing Element in Sentencing Reform” 35Vanderbilt Law Review607.
19.
United Kingdom, Advisory Council on the Penal System (1978) Sentences of Imprisonment: A Review of Maximum Penalties (UK, ACPS, 1978).
20.
Victoria (1988)Victorian Sentencing Committee: Report(Starke, 1988).
21.
Von HirschA (1985) Past or Future Crimes: Deservedness and Dangerousness in the Sentencing of Criminals.
22.
Von HirschA (1983) “Commensurability and Crime Prevention: Evaluating Formal Sentencing Structures and Their Rationale” 74Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology209.
23.
WalkerJCollinsMWilsonP (1988) “How the Public See Sentencing: An Australian Survey” in WalkerNHoughM(eds)Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries.
24.
WalkerNHoughM (1988) “Introduction: Developments in Methods and Perspectives” in WalkerNHoughM(eds)Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries.
25.
WasikM (1987) “Guidance, Guide-lines and Criminal Record” inWasikNPeaseK(eds)Sentencing Reform: Guidance or Guide-lines.
