The judiciary have frequently refused to compare sentences, stating that the circumstances of the offender and offence vary so greatly that there is no workable basis upon which to do so. This article presents an empirical model that seeks to identify and quantify the relative significance of various mitigating and aggravating factors which affect sexual offence sentences. The results suggest that it is possible to develop such a model. In doing so, they offer evidence as to the current approach to sexual offence sentencing of the New Zealand Court of Appeal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChowG (1960) “Tests of Equality Between Sets of Coefficients in Two Linear Regressions” Econometrica28: 391–605.
2.
HallG (1987) Sentencing in New Zealand. Butterworths, Wellington.
3.
KonecniV JEbbesenE B (1981) “A Critique of Theory and Method in Social-Psychological Approaches to Legal Issues” inThe Trial Process (edSalesB D) 481–98. Plenum Press, New York.
4.
KonecniV JEbbesenE B(eds) (1982) The Criminal Justice System: A Social-Psychological Analysis. Freeman, San Francisco.
5.
LillieforsH W (1967) “On the Kolmogorov-Smimov Test for Normality with Mean and Variance Unknown” Journal of the American Statistical Association62: 339–402.
6.
LovegroveA (1989) Judicial Decision Making, Sentencing Policy, and Numerical Guidance. Springer-Verlag, New York.
7.
MontgomeryD CPeckE A (1982) Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis. Wiley, New York.
8.
New Zealand Department of Justice (1988) Report on the Impact on Sentencing of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. Government Printer, Wellington.
9.
Report of the Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Violence (1987). Government Printer, Wellington.
10.
SuttonL P (1978) Variations in Federal Criminal Sentences: Statistical Assessment at the National Level. Criminal Justice Research Centre, New York.
ThielHGoldbergerA S (1961) “On Pure and Mixed Statistical Estimation in Economics” International Economic Review2: 65–78.
13.
ThomasD A (1979) Principles of Sentencing: The Sentencing Policy of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (2nd ed). London, Heinemann.
14.
ViningA RDeanC (1980) “Towards Sentencing Uniformity: Integrating the Normative and the Empirical Orientation” inNew Directions in Sentencing (edGrosmanB A) 117–54. Butterworth, Toronto.
15.
WhiteH (1980) “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity” Econometrica48: 817–38.
16.
WilkinsL T (1978) Sentencing Guidelines: Structuring Judicial Discretion. United States Department of Justice, Washington DC.
