The first part of this article asks whether judicial sentencing can be regarded as founded on a well-informed policy. An analysis of the character of sentencing policy as it is to be found in sentencing judgments, the criminological basis of this policy and an assessment of the public's knowledge of and participation in the development of judicial sentencing policy demonstrates a negative answer is required. A case is then made for the judicial development of a more comprehensive and criminologically well-founded policy and for appropriate community involvement in this process. Finally, a scheme is proposed to facilitate these two outcomes: judicial sentencing policy could then be regarded as well informed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Attorney-General's Reference No 15 of 1992 (Andrew John S) (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 324.
2.
Attorney-General's Reference No 19 of 1992 (McMorrow) (1993) 14 Cr App R (S) 330.
3.
Billam and Others (1986) 8 Cr App R (S) 48.
4.
Gould and Others (1983) 5 Cr App R (S) 72.
5.
Grabovac (1997) 92 A Crim R 258.
6.
Hakopian (1991) Unreported judgment of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, 11 December.
7.
Harris (1981) Unreported judgment of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, 18 August.
8.
Lakeland (1993) Unreported judgment of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, 19 November.
9.
Mussell and Others (1990) 12 Cr App R (S) 607.
10.
Ramage (1993) Unreported judgment of the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal, 15 September.
11.
Williscroft and Others [1975] VR 292.
12.
Young and Others [1990] VR 951.
13.
AshworthA (1984) ‘Techniques of guidance on sentencing’, Criminal Law Review, pp 519–30.
14.
AshworthA (1987a) ‘Criminal justice, rights and sentencing’, a review of sentencing policy and problems’ inPotasI (ed), Sentencing in Australia: Issues, Policy and Reform, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra, pp 35–73.
15.
AshworthAAshworthA (1987b) ‘Devising sentencing guidance for England’, inWasikMPeaseK (eds), Sentencing Reform: Guidance or Guidelines, Manchester University Press, Manchester.pp 81–104.
16.
AshworthA (1994) ‘Elephants and sentencing: a duty unfulfilled’, Criminal Law Review, pp 153–5.
17.
AshworthA (1995) Sentencing and Criminal Justice, 2nd edn, Butterworths, London.
18.
AshworthAGendersEMansfieldGPeayJPlayerE (1984) Sentencing in the Crown Court: Report of an Exploratory Study, Centre for Criminological Research, University of Oxford, Oxford.
19.
AshworthAHoughMAshworthAHoughM (1996) Sentencing and the climate of opinion, Criminal Law Review, pp 776–87.
20.
BlumsteinACohenJ (1980) ‘Sentencing of convicted offenders: an analysis of the public's view’, Law and Society Review, vol 14, pp 223–61.
21.
BottomsA (1995) ‘The philosophy and politics of punishment and sentencing’, inClarksonCMorganR(eds), The Politics of Sentencing Reform, Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 17–49.
22.
ChanJ (1995) ‘Systematically distorted communication? Criminological knowledge, media representation and public policy’, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Special supplementary issue, pp 23–30.
23.
DalyK (1995) ‘Celebrated crime cases and the public's imagination: from bad press to bad policy?’, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Special supplementary issue, pp 6–22.
24.
DavisK (1969) Discretionary Justice: A Preliminary Inquiry, Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge.
25.
DevlinP (1979) The Judge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
26.
DixonD (1995) ‘Crime, criminology and public policy’, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, Special supplementary issuepp 1–5.
27.
DurhamA (1985) ‘Weighting punishments: a commentary on Nevares-Muniz’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol 76, pp 201–7.
28.
DurhamA (1993) ‘Public opinion regarding sentences for crime: does it exist?’, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol 21, pp 1–11.
FoxR (1993) ‘Legislation comment: Victoria turns to the right in sentencing reform: the Sentencing (Amendment) Act 1993 (Vic)’, Criminal Law Journal, vol 17, pp 394–415.
31.
FoxRFreibergA (1985) Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
32.
GottfredsonSTaylorR (1984) ‘Public policy and prison populations: measuring opinions about reform’, Judicature, vol 68, pp 190–201.
33.
GottfredsonDTonryM (eds) (1987) Prediction and Classification: Criminal Justice Decision Making, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
34.
GraboskyPWilsonP (1989) Journalism and Justice: How Crime is Reported, Pluto Press, Sydney.
35.
HampelG (1990) ‘Sentencing and the plea in mitigation’, Law Institute Journal, vol 64, pp 853–4.
36.
HarlowRDarleyJRobinsonP (1995) ‘The severity of intermediate penal sanctions: a psychophysical scaling approach for obtaining community perceptions’, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, vol 11, pp 71–95.
37.
HawkinsK (1986) ‘On legal decision-making’, Washington and Lee Law Review, vol 43, pp 1161–1242.
38.
HoodR (1989) The Death Penalty: A World-Wide Perspective, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
39.
HoughMMoxonD (1988) ‘Dealing with offenders: popular opinion and the views of victims in England and Wales’, inWalkerNHoughM (eds) Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries, Gower, Aldershot, pp 134–48.
40.
IndermaurD (1987) ‘Public perception of sentencing in Perth, Western Australia’, The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol 20, pp 163–183.
41.
Judges of the County Court of Victoria (1991updated) Victorian Sentencing Manual, Law Printer, Melbourne.
42.
Judicial Commission of New South Wales (1996) 1996 Annual Reports, Judicial Commission of New South Wales, Sydney.
Law Reform Commission - Australia (1988) Sentencing, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
45.
Law Reform Commission of Victoria (1992) Rape: Reform of Law and Procedure Supplementary Issues, Law Reform Commission of Victoria, Melbourne.
46.
LloydCWalmsleyR (1989) Changes in Rape Offences and Sentencing, HMSO, London.
47.
LovegroveA (1989) Judicial Decision Making, Sentencing Policy, and Numerical Guidance, Springer-Verlag, New York.
48.
LovegroveA (1997) The Framework of Judicial Sentencing: A Study in Legal Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
49.
LovegroveA (1997) ‘Towards consistency of approach in sentencing the multiple offender’, Criminal Law Journal, vol 21, pp 134–44.
50.
MathiesenT (1990) Prison on Trial: A Critical Assessment, Sage, London.
51.
MillerJRossiPSimpsonJ (1991) ‘Felony punishments: a factorial survey of perceived justice in criminal sentencing’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol 82, pp 396–422.
52.
NelsonJ (1995) ‘The role of the Public Information Officer in New South Wales courts’, Journal of Judicial Administration, vol 5, pp 34–8.
RileyPRoseV (1980) Public vs elite opinion on correctional reform: implications for social policy, Journal of Criminal Justice, vol 8, pp 345–56.
55.
RobertsJDoobA (1990) ‘News media influences on public views of sentencing’, Law and Human Behavior, vol 14, pp 451–68.
56.
RobertsJEdwardsD (1989) ‘Contextual effects on judgments of crimes, criminals, and the purposes of sentencing’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, vol 19, pp 902–17.
57.
RobinsonPDarleyJ (1995) Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law, Westview Press, Boulder.
58.
RobinsonPDarleyJ (1997) ‘The utility of desert’, Northwestern University Law Review, vol 91, pp 453–99.
59.
SamuelWMouldsE (1986) ‘The effect of crime severity on perceptions of fair punishment: a California case study’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol 77, pp 931–48.
60.
SchlesingerPTumberH (1994) Reporting Crime: The Media Politics of Criminal Justice, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
61.
Supreme Court of Victoria (1988) ‘Comments on the discussion paper dated April 1987 issued by the Victorian Sentencing Committee’, inSentencing: Report of the Victorian Sentencing Committee Vol 3, Attorney-General's Department, Melbourne, pp A3–26.
62.
TeagueB (1995) ‘The courts, the media and the community ? a Victorian perspective’, Journal of Judicial Administration, vol 5, pp 22–33.
63.
ThomasD (1979) Principles of Sentencing: The Sentencing Policy of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, 2nd edn, Heinemann, London.
64.
ThomasD (1983) ‘Sentencing discretion and appellate review’, inShaplandJ (ed) Decision Making in the Legal System, British Psychological Society, Leicester, pp 61–71.
ThomasD (1982–1996)Current Sentencing Practice, Sweet and Maxwell, London.
67.
ThomsonDRagonaA (1987) ‘Popular moderation versus government authoritarianism: an interactionist view of public sentiments toward criminal sanctions’, Crime and Delinquency, vol 33, pp 337–57.
68.
TonryM (1991) ‘The politics and processes of sentencing commissions’, Crime and Delinquency, vol 37, pp 307–29.
69.
TonryM (1995) ‘Sentencing reform across national boundaries’, inClarksonCMorganR (eds) The Politics of Sentencing Reform, Clarendon Press, Oxford.pp 267–82.
70.
TonryM (1996) Sentencing Matters, Oxford University Press, New York.
71.
Victorian Community Council Against Violence (1996) Sentencing in Victoria: Information Paper, Victorian Community Council Against Violence, Melbourne.
72.
Victorian Government (1996) ‘Crime and punishment Your say Your verdict’, Herald Sun, 1 August pp 49–56.
73.
Victorian Sentencing Committee (1988) Sentencing: Report of the Victorian Sentencing Committee Vol 1Attorney-General's Department, Melbourne.
74.
von HirschAJareborgN (1991) ‘Gauging criminal harm: a living-standard analysis’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, vol 11, pp 1–38.
75.
WalkerJCollinsMWilsonP (1988) ‘How the public sees sentencing: an Australian survey’ inWalkerNHoughM (eds) Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries, Gower, Aldershot, pp 149–59.
76.
WalkerNHoughMPostscript (1988) inWalkerNHoughM (eds) Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries, Gower, Aldershot, pp 218–23.
77.
WalkerNHoughMLewisH (1988) ‘Tolerance of leniency and severity in England and Wales’, inWalkerNHoughM (eds) Public Attitudes to Sentencing: Surveys from Five Countries, Gower, Aldershot.pp 178–202.
ZimmermanSvan AlstyneDDunnC (1988) ‘The national punishment survey and public policy consequences’, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol 25,pp 120–49.
