NCJ Number
180424
Date Published
December 1999
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This paper examines the evidence for and against mandatory sentencing in Australia and finds that although mandatory sentencing may result in some reduction in crime, the costs involved may not justify the small decrease in crime that may be achieved.
Abstract
There is a widely held belief that the imposition of a mandatory sentence for a second or third offense will have a significant deterrent effect on that individual and will send a warning message to potential offenders. Advocates of mandatory sentencing argue that it will bring consistency and uniformity in sentencing and appease public concern about crime and punishment. This paper concludes, however, that efforts made to turn potential offenders into responsible and law-abiding citizens may be more productive in earlier stages of their development than investing resources designed to deter criminal behavior through more rigid sentencing policies. Spending money on early intervention programs, education, and better environmental and security product design may be a more cost-effective strategy for reducing crime. This paper argues that judges who are publicly accountable for their decisions may be in a better position to ensure that justice is served through a greater understanding of the context of the offense than legislation that requires mandatory sentencing; mandatory sentencing cannot make allowances for the circumstances of the particular crime at issue. A 27-item bibliography