Sentencing principles 2.1-2.2 UK & Commonwealth

This report is the second in a series on community views about crime, courts and sentencing. It presents evidence of the views of a random sample of 300 Victorians about the purposes of sentencing. The report shows that views on the purposes of sentencing are complex and nuanced. Participants in this study do not focus solely on punishment as a purpose of sentencing, but also see rehabilitation as an important purpose of sentencing in certain instances. These findings show that people rate prior offending as a significant aggravating factor. Indeed, members of the community who responded to this survey clearly appreciate the complexities of sentencing for different types of offender and offence. This appreciation and understanding has important implications for sentencers. Judges and magistrates are required to balance the various purposes of sentencing for every offender who comes before them. At the same time, they have to consider community concerns and expectations of what sente...

Mandatory sentencing is a controversial issue that creates significant debate and divisions both in the community and in government. It has been implemented, in Australia and around the world, in various forms including 'three strikes' legislation and, in an attenuated form, as presumptive minimum sentences and standard non-parole periods. The goal of these legislative initiatives has been to increase consistency in sentencing and to improve public confidence in the courts by ensuring that sentences properly reflect community views. Periodically calls arise for the introduction of mandatory sentences in Victoria. This research paper examines what mandatory sentencing is and considers how mandatory sentencing fits within a spectrum of sentencing schemes, ranging from wholly discretionary systems and structured discretionary systems through systems with standard minimum non-parole periods to systems with greater degrees of prescription. The purpose of the paper is to consider ...

2006

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 1989

With reform of the sentencing process a priority in both the United States and Canada, there has been a growth of interest in public attitudes toward the goals of sentencing. Two studies investigated the layperson's view of the appropriate purpose of sentencing offenders. Previous work on this topic has simply provided subjects with a checkList of sentencing purposes and asked them to endorse one. The present research-using both college students and members of the general public-employed a procedure that allows researchers to infer the principle underlying sentencing decisions. In the first study, subjects rated the importance of several sentencing purposes and also assigned sentences to offenders described in scenarios. Seven0 of assigned sentence was sigm&antly correlated only with the seriousness of the offence. Ratings of the importance of general deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation were not signiJicantly related to severity of recommended penalties. This result contrasts with the import.nce ratings of these purposes provided by the subjects themselves. These findings were replicated in the second study, which employed an independent sample of subjects, In contrast to the resulfs of opinion polls, it would appear that the public is more concerned with the principle of just deserts than with the utilitarian sentencing aims such as deterrence, incapacitation, or rehabilitation. The methodological implications of this research and the consequences of these findings for sentencing policy are discussed.

2017

Information contained in this publication or product may be reproduced, in part or in whole, and by any means, for personal or public non-commercial purposes, without charge or further permission, unless otherwise specified. You are asked to: exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the materials reproduced; indicate both the complete title of the materials reproduced, as well as the author organization; and indicate that the reproduction is a copy of an official work that is published by the Government of Canada and that the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of Canada. Commercial reproduction and distribution is prohibited except with written permission from the Department of Justice Canada. For more information, please contact the Department of Justice Canada at: www.justice.gc.ca.

Law and contemporary problems, 2013

I INTRODUCTION In England and Wales, offenses typically have fixed maximum penalties assigned to them, usually in the form of a length of custody or fine amount, and some offenses may also have mandatory minimum sentences. (1) In addition, the available sentencing options (for example, custody, community penalty, fine, and compensation) may differ for offense type (that is, summary and indictable offenses) and for adult and youth (aged under seventeen) offenders. (2) Despite this, sentencers are afforded considerable discretion in the sentence they choose to pass. When applying their discretion to sentencing decisions, it is intended that sentencers use legal factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offense and the defendant's criminal history. (3) The sentencer is also obligated to take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. (4) For instance, in England and Wales, aggravating factors include the vulnerability of the victim, whether the victim was racially...

2013

and Wales, offenses typically have fixed maximum penalties assigned to them, usually in the form of a length of custody or fine amount, and some offenses may also have mandatory minimum sentences. 1 In addition, the available sentencing options (for example, custody, community penalty, fine, and compensation) may differ for offense type (that is, summary and indictable offenses) and for adult and youth (aged under seventeen) offenders. 2 Despite this, sentencers are afforded considerable discretion in the sentence they choose to pass. When applying their discretion to sentencing decisions, it is intended that sentencers use legal factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offense and the defendant's criminal history. 3 The sentencer is also obligated to take into account any aggravating and mitigating factors. 4 For instance, in England and Wales, aggravating factors include the vulnerability of the victim, whether the victim was racially or religiously targeted, the offender's leading role in the offense, and her profit from the offense. 5 Mitigating factors include whether the offender was provoked, the offender's minor role in the offense, and her acceptance of responsibility or show of remorse. 6 The sentencer may also have access to sentencing recommendations provided in a pre-sentence report