NCJ Number
92915
Date Published
1983
Length
13 pages
Annotation
This study of sentencing in Australia considers the following problems: (1) a lack of consensus on sentencing rationale, (2) no sentencing guidelines, and (3) the simultaneous application of incompatible sentencing rationales.
Abstract
Australian surveys regarding the attitudes of the public and judges toward the objectives of imprisonment demonstrate that both groups are divided on the primary purpose of imprisonment. It is not surprising then that studies also show sentencing disparity in Australia, disparities which correlate poorly with the serious crime rates of different jurisdictions. Some argue that any sentencing disparities in lower courts can be revised through sentencing appeals, but for various reasons, this is not practical. Others argue that sentencing guidelines can reduce sentencing disparity, but this approach is not likely to succeed as long as there is conflict over sentencing rationale. At the heart of this conflict are the two basic and potentially inconsistent functions of the sentence -- the exclamatory function of the sentence, which has to do with a public expression of moral sentiment about the offense, and the manipulative function, which aims at altering the behavior of the sentenced offender or others who might offend. These functions tend to be at cross-purposes in the use of imprisonment; while imprisonment expresses moral outrage at an offense, it has been demonstrated to be a poor vehicle for the manipulative function of reducing recidivism. Guidelines cannot be devised until the philosophic conflicts over sentencing purposes are resolved. Tabular data are provided.