 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
swoop42 
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008
Location: The 18
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
It makes me laugh how people believe we are to soft on crime.
It's the opposite actually with magistrates and judges not given enough opportunity to judge each case on it's merits and apply a sentence they deem fit because politicians always looking for easy targets have introduced mandatory sentencing and abolished the ability for a sentence to include intensive corrections orders or a suspended prison term.
The net result is we have an overflowing prison population filled with people often serving short sentences who in the past could have served their punishment and received rehabilitation programs in the community.
_________________
He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
 |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
|
|
|
|
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It’s also a US study – a country which seems, to my mind, to allow a great deal more judicial discretion in sentencing, in the worst possible sense – so could perhaps be of questionable relevance to the Australian context?
(By the way, I’m not in any way invested in this being false. It may well be true, and the fact that such double standards exist overseas is damning. I’m just sceptical about such claims when they’re made based on anecdotes or a media report of one given case, as they so often are. The fact that double standards do affect men and women negatively in different ways is one of the things that makes lazy complaints of “double standards” among my biggest pet peeves – see “Imagine if Barnaby Joyce was a woman”, etc.)
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5 
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I was told that judges and magistrates are guided to apply the 'average' sentence as the benchmark.
If this is correct, then the severity of sentences has to diminish because each new judgment will lower the average.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This might be of interest to some of you. http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VSM/index.htm#13888.htm
This is the Sentencing Manual provided for Victorian judges.
Just to update with the specifics - according to The Age yesterday, these two offenders were sentenced for "intentionally causing injury". The relevant recent sentencing in the County Court is here in the Sentencing Manual, neatly arranged by decreasing order of total effective sentence: http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/VSM/index.htm#63376.htm
From a quick skim, it looks like the absolutely worst cases of intentionally causing "injury" (rather than "serious injury", for which people seem to get 5 to 10 years) get about 3 years' imprisonment (for the injury - some of them have been sentenced for other appalling things they did as well, like commit murders and so on, so you have to read the detail in the tables to understand what they got for the injury offences) and, at the lower end, people get lengthy community corrections orders, which is what (I believe) happened here.
Last edited by Pies4shaw on Wed May 16, 2018 7:25 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Bucks5 wrote: | I was told that judges and magistrates are guided to apply the 'average' sentence as the benchmark.
If this is correct, then the severity of sentences has to diminish because each new judgment will lower the average. |
This argument does not make sense to me... |
|
|
|
|
Pi 
Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A relevant study in sentencing disparities from Victoria 2010, (I don't think there is a newer one )
https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Gender%20Differences%20in%20Sentencing%20Outcomes.pdf
"Magistrates perceived their use of custody for women as a sentence of last resort, used either because the
crime was so serious that prison was the only option or because they were forced into it by legislation, such
as for non-payment of fines. In contrast men were seen as eligible for any sentencing option." (why would they think this way?)
Some would say that is an institutional bias.....
The conclusion actually says something else.
"Thus the disparities seen in sentencing outcomes for men and women are a reflection not of bias, but of
legitimate yet gender-linked characteristics: differences are evident because of factors associated with being
female, not because of gender per se"
This type sentencing disparity is as old as the Magna Carta
_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ^ Something for the "opposite gender" thread, I see... |
|
|
|
|
Bucks5
Nicky D - Parting the red sea
Joined: 23 Mar 2002
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | | Bucks5 wrote: | I was told that judges and magistrates are guided to apply the 'average' sentence as the benchmark.
If this is correct, then the severity of sentences has to diminish because each new judgment will lower the average. |
This argument does not make sense to me... |
If the sentencing guidelines tells judges to hand out the 'average' sentence and there will always be a cohort of people receiving lessor sentences for many reasons, the average has to keep on dropping.
The theory on handing out the average is reduce people appealing on the grounds the sentence was manifestly excessive when compared to (you guessed it) the average.
_________________
How would Siri know when to answer "Hey Siri" unless it is listening in to everything you say? |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| It could be true I suppose. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
K's right. That argument makes no legal sense at all. In any event, you can read the sentencing manual and you'll see no such suggestion.
In any event, on occasions (including one in the last couple of years, the name of which presently escapes me) when the Court of Appeal has tried to establish an effective "tariff" for a particular offence, the High Court has corrected them and admonished the Court of Appeal for trying to do so. The flipside of "manifest excess" is, of course, "manifest inadequacy". Either is capable of being a ground for a sentencing appeal - but only if the sentence actually is excessive or inadequate. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Was going to post again, but now I see new posts I haven't read yet... |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Gender is a secondary issue. The big issue is the mass wreckage and injury left in the wake of selfish thugs who no longer fear the wider society and its justice system, thanks to efforts of craven politicians and avaricious, entrepreneurial legal professionals.
Gradually, like the boiling frog, civil society adjusts slowly to its death.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Pi wrote: | A relevant study in sentencing disparities from Victoria 2010, (I don't think there is a newer one )
https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Gender%20Differences%20in%20Sentencing%20Outcomes.pdf
"Magistrates perceived their use of custody for women as a sentence of last resort, used either because the
crime was so serious that prison was the only option or because they were forced into it by legislation, such
as for non-payment of fines. In contrast men were seen as eligible for any sentencing option." (why would they think this way?)
Some would say that is an institutional bias.....
The conclusion actually says something else.
"Thus the disparities seen in sentencing outcomes for men and women are a reflection not of bias, but of
legitimate yet gender-linked characteristics: differences are evident because of factors associated with being
female, not because of gender per se"
This type sentencing disparity is as old as the Magna Carta |
Thanks Pi – that’s the kind of thing I was hoping to read. Suffice it to say I take a pretty dim view of ‘benevolent’ sexism in sentencing, and I would hope that any such discrimination on gender lines alone would be treated as unacceptable. I have to admit that I find this, from the executive summary, a little alarming:
| Quote: | | The biographies of female offenders vary systematically from those of men. Contributing to their blurred status as both victims and offenders, women are more likely than men to have a history of factors that are often causally interrelated, such as mental illness, physical or sexual victimization in childhood or early adulthood, and substance abuse. |
There’s much to be said about this and why it’s problematic, but perhaps that’s a topic for another thread.
On the broader topic, I think this is the old debate around punitive vs functional sentencing in action. On an intuitive level, we would like someone who has harmed us to receive their just deserts (i.e. something that hurts, such as deprivation of liberty), and we feel angry about someone who has caused serious harm getting what seems like a tap on the wrist. These sentiments have long fuelled high imprisonment rates, mandatory sentencing and the like. The problem is that the costs of this approach are well-established: prison often damages criminals further, having a counter-rehabilitative effect, increasing rates of recidivism and so on. If you’ll forgive the analogy, it’s the revenge lollies that make society’s teeth rot.
Not many people like community service orders, on the other hand, because they seem insufficiently punitive. That thug kicked an innocent person’s head in; why shouldn’t they suffer? The trouble is that that’s a purely emotional response. Consider this: what if it turned out (as research seems to suggest) that community service reduces the risk of recidivism and provides better prospects of rehabilitation, thus making society safer? Would you still prioritise making the criminal suffer in the knowledge that you’re making society a more dangerous place?
Maybe most people would. But I feel like the experts in this field know what works, and I trust their judgement. Jail is a crutch we’ve leant on for much too long, and in many ways a fantasy that has prevented us from actually making society a better place for its inhabitants. It has its place, but we can do better, and more community service orders is probably a good place to start.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | It makes me laugh how people believe we are to soft on crime.
It's the opposite actually with magistrates and judges not given enough opportunity to judge each case on it's merits and apply a sentence they deem fit because politicians always looking for easy targets have introduced mandatory sentencing and abolished the ability for a sentence to include intensive corrections orders or a suspended prison term.
The net result is we have an overflowing prison population filled with people often serving short sentences who in the past could have served their punishment and received rehabilitation programs in the community. |
That just means soft on the wrong crimes, too hard on others.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
