NCJ Number
164180
Journal
Australian Psychologist Volume: 31 Issue: 1 Dated: (March 1996) Pages: 60-62
Date Published
1996
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This critique of Indermaur's views as expressed in "Offender Psychology and Sentencing" (see NCJ-164178) focuses on issues of deterrence and exemplary sentencing, mitigation and the roles of psychiatry and psychology, remorse and contemplating of risk- taking, and the factors that influence perceptions of parity in sentencing.
Abstract
Deterrence can be divided into two subcategories: "simple" and "general." "Simple" deterrence involves sentencing the offender in such a manner that he/she would be less likely to reoffend. "General" deterrence uses the harshness of sentencing to deter the general population from imitating the offender's behavior. Indermaur does not refer to the two types of deterrence, so he neglects to note than an offender who receives an exemplary sentence tends to perceive it as unduly harsh. Although Indermaur argues that sentencers lack ability and information regarding criminology and criminal behavioral programs, there is no lack of psychologists and psychiatrists offering to clarify the various sentencing problems and offering advice concerning incarceration and the availability of clinics concerned with various treatments. Indermaur does not give offender remorse the attention it deserves. He simply states that offenders plead guilty to obtain a lesser sentence rather than as an expression of remorse. Further, Indermaur does not address adequately the relationship between remorse and risk-taking. Although Indermaur's title suggests a comprehensive discussion of offender psychology and sentencing, he does not discuss such issues as actual parity, perceived parity, fines in terms of income, imprisonment as opposed to noncustodial sentencing, and offenses that occur while the mental state of the offender is modified to some degree. 21 references