Mandatory Sentencing and the Myth of the Fair-Go

• NCJ Number: 190950
• Author(s): Megan Davis
• Date Published: June 2001
• Length: 5 pages
• Sale Source: Australian Institute of Criminology
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: Australia
• Note: Paper presented at the 4th National Outlook Symposium on Crime in Australia, "New Crimes or New Responses," held in Canberra, June 21-22, 2001; downloaded October 8, 2001.

Annotation

This paper argues that mandatory sentencing in Australia, particularly as practiced in the Northern Territory and Western Australia, has a discriminatory impact on Aboriginal juveniles.

Abstract

One of the main arguments in favor of mandatory sentencing is that the laws are not discriminatory but apply equally to all offenders. In fact, the mandatory sentencing laws are designed to target those property offenses that are committed predominantly by individuals who come from a low socioeconomic background, notably Aboriginal youth. Mandatory sentencing is a political ploy designed to convince the citizenry that politicians are enacting legislation that requires the judiciary to be tough on criminals. Under mandatory sentencing, this means administering predictably harsh sentences for targeted crimes without regard to the circumstances of the offense or the background of the offender. For wealthy youth in Sydney, however, the court considers the circumstances surrounding the crime, believing that a kid from such a background could not be a serious criminal. On the other hand, the poor Aboriginal youth from the Northern Territory who comes from a poor, socially dysfunctional background is sentenced without any regard to the deprivations of his development. Rehabilitation must be a primary goal of sentencing, and this requires discretionary decision making that takes into account the rehabilitative needs of the offender in sentencing.