Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) provide important information about an individual’s background and circumstances to assist judicial officers in the sentencing process. The present study analyzed PSRs for 63 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people sentenced by either an Indigenous sentencing court or a mainstream court in the Australian State of Victoria. Using natural language processing techniques, our analyses revealed few differences between PSRs conducted for each court. However, PSRs were found to predominantly feature key words that are risk-based, with mainstream court PSRs more negatively worded than the Indigenous sentencing court’s PSRs. This may have been due to the inclusion of results from a risk and need assessment tool. Pro-social factors did comprise more than one third of extracted keywords, although the number of strength-based culture-related keywords, in particular, was low across PSRs in both courts. It is possible that courts may not be receiving all the information needed to promote individualized justice.
AnthonyT.BartelsL.HopkinsA. (2015). Lessons lost in sentencing: Welding individualised justice to Indigenous justice. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 47–76.
6.
AnthonyT.LongmanC. (2017). Blinded by the White: A comparative analysis of jury challenges on racial grounds. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 6(3), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v6i3.419
7.
AnthonyT.MarchettiE.BehrendtL.LongmanC. (2017). Individualised justice through indigenous community reports in sentencing. Journal of Judicial Administration, 26(3), 121–140.
BehdennaS.BarigouF.BelalemG. (2018). Document level sentiment analysis: A survey. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Context-Aware Systems and Applications, 18(13), e2. http://dx.doi.org/10.4108/eai.14-3-2018.154339
11.
BlondelV. D.GuillaumeJ.-L.LambiotteR.LefebvreE. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. http://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008
12.
BorowskiA. (2010). Indigenous participation in sentencing young offenders: Findings from an evaluation of the Children’s Koori Court of Victoria. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(3), 465–484. https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.43.3.465
13.
BorowskiA. (2011). In courtroom 7—The Children’s Koori Court at work: Findings from an evaluation. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(7), 1110–1134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10381622
14.
BorumR.BartelP.ForthA. (2006). Manual for the Structured Assessment for Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). Psychological Assessment Resources.
de VogelV.de RuiterC.BoumanY.de Vries RobbéM. (2012). SAPROF: Structured Assessment of Protective Factors for violence risk (2nd ed.). Van der Hoeven Kliniek.
ElbagirS.YangJ. (2018). Sentiment analysis of Twitter data based on ordinal classification. In Proceedings of 2018 international conference on algorithms, computing and artificial intelligence (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1145/3302425.3302488
FitzgeraldJ. (2008). Does circle sentencing reduce Aboriginal offending? (Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 115). NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research. https://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/Publications/CJB/cjb115.pdf
33.
HarcourtB. E. (2006). Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/9780226315997
“HAS” v. The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 29.
37.
HerbertA. (2017). Change in paradigm or change in paradox: Gladue report practices and access to justice. Queen’s Law Journal, 43(1), 149–174.
38.
HuttoC. J.GilbertE. (2014). Vader: A parsimonious rule-based model for sentiment analysis of social media text. In Proceedings of the eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media (pp. 216–225). https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM14/paper/viewPaper/8109
39.
JurekA.MulvennaM. D.BiY. (2015). Improved lexicon-based sentiment analysis for social media analytics. Security Informatics, 4(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13388-015-0024-x
MarchettiE. (2017). Nothing works? A meta-review of Indigenous sentencing court evaluations. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 28(3), 257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2017.12036074
42.
MaxwellY.DayA.CaseyS. (2013). Understanding the needs of vulnerable prisoners: The role of social and emotional wellbeing. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 9(2), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/17449201311326934
PangB.LeeL. (2008). Opinion mining and sentiment analysis. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 2(1–2), 1–135. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000011
45.
Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld.) (Austl.).
46.
R v. Gladue. (1999). 1 SCR 688.
47.
Sentencing Act1991 (Vic.) (Austl.).
48.
Sentencing Act1995 (NT) (Austl.).
49.
Sentencing Act2002 (NZ).
50.
SerinR. C. (2007). The Dynamic Risk Assessment for Offender Re-Entry (DRAOR) [Unpublished user manual]. Carleton University.
51.
ShepherdS. M.AnthonyT. (2018). Popping the cultural bubble of violence risk assessment tools. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29(2), 211–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1354055
52.
StarrS. B. (2015). The new profiling: Why punishing based on poverty and identity is unconstitutional and wrong. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 27(4), 229–236.
WebsterC. D.MartinM.BrinkJ.NichollsT. L.MiddletonC. (2004). Manual for the Short-Term Assessment of Risk and Treatability (START): Version 1.0. Consultation edition. St. Joseph’s Healthcare and Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
