NCJ Number
188769
Journal
Judicial Review Volume: 4 Issue: 4 Dated: 2000 Pages: 357-368
Date Published
2000
Length
12 pages
Annotation
Over the past two decades the Australian judicial system has called for comprehensive sentencing information when considering arguments as to the excessiveness of a sentence on appeal, or when attempting to standardize sentences to ensure the consistency of punishment
Abstract
The wave of the late 1980's had a number of sentencing reform elements that included: truth in sentencing; increases in statutory maximum penalties; indefinite sentences; cumulative rather than concurrent sentences; mandatory minimum terms; and sentencing guideline judgments. However, the wave of sentencing reform designated to get tough on crime appeared to have run its course. Press reports were dominated by stories of overcrowded prisons, riots, disturbances, and emergency measures to deal with facilities stretched beyond their design capacities. Governmental action is now focused on dealing with this crisis in the prisons. There is no single factor which can be singled out as being primarily responsible for the steady but significant increase in prison numbers. Some contributing factors are the increase in the total proportion of persons sentenced by courts who receive a prison sentence, especially in higher courts; the increase in the average sentence lengths; more stringent criteria for parole and early release; and the tightening of bail conditions and a growth in number of unsentenced prisoners held in custody. Consequently, there is a loss of confidence in the court system by the public and politicians. The introduction to guideline sentences shows that courts see the need to be responsive to public sentiment. 1 table, 16 footnotes.