This article examines the ambivalent nature of suspended sentences of imprisonment and public reactions to them. In Australia, and elsewhere, they have created confusion, have been in and out of political and judicial favour and have been repeatedly modified. The article discusses the Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council's review of suspended sentences, with particular reference to public perceptions of the sentence and the council's various proposals for reform. It examines, in particular, four issues relating to this sanction: (1) the meaning of punishment, (2) the severity of punishment, (3) truth in sentencing and the nature of substitutional sanctions and (4) the appropriateness of the sanction for specific offences. The article concludes with a discussion as to whether public perceptions matter in the broad sentencing context and notes that public perceptions are only one of a number of factors driving sentencing reform.
AlbonettiC.A. (1999). The avoidance of punishment: A legal-bureaucratic model of suspended sentences in federal white-collar cases prior to the federal sentencing guidelines. Social Forces, 87(1), 303–329.
2.
AncelM. (1971). Suspended sentence: A report presented by the Department of Criminal Science of the Institute of Comparative Law, University of Paris to the Cambridge Institute of Criminology. London: Heinemann.
3.
BagaricM. (1999). Suspended sentences and preventive sentences: Illusory evils and disproportionate punishments. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 22(2), 535–563.
4.
BartelsL. (2007). The use of suspended sentences in Australia: Unsheathing the sword of Damocles. Criminal Law Journal, 31(2), 113–131.
5.
BottomsA.E. (1981). The suspended sentence in England 1967-1978. British Journal of Criminology, 21(1), 1–26.
6.
BrownM.YoungW. (2000). Recent trends in sentencing and penal policy in New Zealand. International Criminal Justice Review, 10, 1–31.
DoobA.RobertsJ. (1983). Sentencing: An analysis of the public's view of sentencing. Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada.
9.
DoobA.MarinosV. (1995). Reconceptualizing punishment: Understanding the limitations on the use of intermediate sanctions. University of Chicago Law School Roundtable, 2(2), 413–433.
DuffR.A. (2000). Punishment, communication and community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
FeeleyM. (1979). The process is the punishment. New York: Russell Sage.
13.
FoxR.FreibergA. (1999). Sentencing: State and federal law in Victoria (2nd ed.). Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
14.
FreibergA. (1992). Truth in sentencing? The abolition of remissions in Victoria. Criminal Law Journal, 16, 165–185.
15.
FreibergA. (2001). Affective versus effective justice: Instrumentalism and emotionalism in criminal Justice. Punishment & Society, 3(2), 265–278.
16.
FreibergA. (2008). The Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council: Incorporating community views into the sentencing process. In FreibergA.GelbK. (Eds.), Penal populism: Sentencing councils and sentencing policy (pp. 148–164). Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press.
FultonB.LatessaE.StichmanA.TravisL. (1997). The state of ISP: Research and policy implications. Federal Probation, 61(4), 65–75.
19.
GarlandD. (1990). Punishment and modern society: A study in social theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
20.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
GelbK. (2008). Myths and misconceptions: Public opinion versus public judgment about sentencing. In FreibergA.GelbK., (Eds.), Penal populism: Sentencing councils and sentencing policy (pp. 68–82). Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press.
22.
Home Office. (1957). Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders (1957). Alternatives to short terms of imprisonment: A report of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. London: HMSO.
23.
Home Office. (1981). Review of parole in England and Wales. London: HMSO.
24.
IndermaurD. (2008). Dealing the public in: Challenges for a transparent and accountable sentencing policy. In FreibergA.GelbK. (Eds.), Penal populism: Sentencing councils and sentencing policy (pp. 45–67). Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press.
25.
IsraelM. (2000-1). ‘What works’ with South Australian newspapers?Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 12(2), 227–232.
26.
Lappi-SeppalaT. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in Finland: The decline of the repressive ideal. In TonryM.FraseR.S. (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions in western countries (pp. 92–150). New York: Oxford University Press.
MackenzieG. (2005). How judges sentence. Sydney, Australia: The Federation Press.
29.
MansonA. (1997). Finding a place for conditional sentences. Criminal Reports, 10, (5th), 283–300.
30.
MansonA. (2001). The conditional sentence: A Canadian approach to sentencing reform, or doing the time warp again. Criminal Law Quarterly, 44(3), 375–398.
31.
MarinosV. (2005). Thinking about penal equivalents. Punishment and Society, 7(4), 441–455.
32.
MarinosV.DoobA.N. (1999). Understanding public attitudes toward conditional sentences of imprisonment. Criminal Reports, 25, 31–41.
33.
MeierB.D. (2003-4). Alternatives to imprisonment in the German criminal justice system. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16, 222–231.
34.
O'MalleyP. (1999). Volatile and contradictory punishment. Theoretical Criminology, 3(2), 175–196.
35.
Pearson and Associates (1999). Review of community-based offender programs: Final report. Adelaide, Australia: Justice Strategy Unit, Attorney-General's Department.
36.
PrattJ. (2008). Penal populism and penal scandal in New Zealand. In FreibergA.GelbK. (Eds.), Penal populism: Sentencing councils and sentencing policy (pp. 31–44). Sydney, Australia: Hawkins Press.
37.
RexS. (2002). Reinventing community penalties: The role of communication. In RexS.TonryM. (Eds.), Reform and punishment: The future of sentencing (pp. 138–157). Cullompton, England: Willan Publishing.
38.
RobertsJ.V. (1997). Conditional sentencing: Sword of Damocles or Pandora's box?Canadian Criminal Law Review, 2, 183–206.
39.
RobertsJ.V. (1999). Conditional sentencing: issues and problems. In RobertsJ.V.ColeD.P. (Eds.), Making sense of sentencing. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
40.
RobertsJ.V. (2002). Public opinion and sentencing policy. In RexS.TonryM. (Eds.), Reform and punishment: The future of sentencing (pp. 18–39). Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing.
41.
RobertsJ.V. (2004). The virtual prison: Community custody and the evolution of imprisonment (Cambridge Studies in Criminology). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
RobertsJ.V.DoobA.N.MarinosV. (2000). Judicial attitudes towards conditional sentences of imprisonment: Results of a national survey. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Justice Canada.
43.
RobertsJ.V.HealyP. (2001). The future of conditional sentencing. Criminal Law Quarterly, 44, 309–341.
44.
RobertsJ.V.MansonA. (2004). The future of conditional sentencing: Perspectives of appellate judges. Ottawa, Canada: Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division. Retrieved March 8, 2008, from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/2004/rr04_8/rr04_8.pdf
45.
SandersT.RobertsJ.V. (2000). Public attitudes toward conditional sentencing: results of a national survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, 199–207.
46.
SearleW.KnaggsT.SimonsenK. (2003). Talking about sentences and crime: The views of people on periodic detention. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Ministry of Justice.
47.
SebbaL. (1970). Penal reform and court practice: The case of the suspended sentence. In DrapkinI. (Ed.), Scripta Hierosolymitana, Studies in Criminology, 2, 133–170.
48.
SebbaL.NathanG. (1984). Further explorations in the scaling of penalties. The British Journal of Criminology, 24(3), 221–249.
49.
Sentencing Advisory Council. (2005a). Suspended sentences in Victoria: A preliminary information paper. Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council.
Sentencing Advisory Council. (2006). Suspended sentences: Final report part 1. Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council.
53.
Sentencing Advisory Council. (2008). Suspended sentences and intermediate sentencing orders: Final report part 2. Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council.
54.
Sentencing Guidelines Council (UK). (2004). New sentences: Criminal Justice Act 2003 guideline. London: Sentencing Guidelines Council.
55.
ShohamS.SandbergM. (1964). Suspended sentences in Israel: An evaluation of the preventive efficacy of prospective imprisonment. Crime and Delinquency, 10, 74–83.
56.
SolomonE.RutherfordM. (2007). Community Sentences Digest. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
57.
TakP.J. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in the Netherlands. In TonryM.FraseR.S. (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions in western countries. New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
Tasmania, Law Reform Institute. (2008). Sentencing, Final Report, No. 11. Hobart, Tasmania.
59.
ThomasD. (1974). Developments in sentencing 1964–1973. Criminal Law Review, 685–692.
60.
TomainoJ.KapardisA. (1996). A criminological study of the use of intensive correction orders in Victoria, Australia. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 40(1), 63–73.
61.
TurnerN. (2007). Suspended sentences in Victoria: A statistical profile. Melbourne, Australia: Sentencing Advisory Council.
62.
WeigendT. (2001). Sentencing and punishment in Germany. In TonryM.FraseR.S. (Eds.), Sentencing and sanctions in western countries (pp. 188–221). New York: Oxford University Press.
