Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:20 pm
Time: 8:20 pm
Results for sentencing (australia)
24 results foundAuthor: Byles, Dennis Title: Sentencing in the Koori Court Division of the Magistrates' Corut: A Statistical Report Summary: In 1991, the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody reported that Indigenous people were significantly over-represented in police custody, prisons and juvenile detention centres. Following the Royal Commission’s recommendations, the Victorian Government resolved to put into place strategies to reduce the Indigenous custody rate. One such initiative, first piloted in 2002, was the establishment of the Koori Court Division of the Victorian Magistrates’ Court (‘the Koori Court’). Through the participation of Aboriginal Elders, Respected Persons and other members of the Indigenous community in the hearing process, the Koori Court aims to provide a more culturally relevant and inclusive sentencing process for Indigenous people charged with offences. This report uses newly available data for a statistical profile of accused persons appearing before the Koori Court. The report also covers the offences heard and sentencing outcomes. Details: Melbourne: Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council, 2010. 70p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2010 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/sentencing_in_the_koori_court_division_of_the_magistrates_court.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/sentencing_in_the_koori_court_division_of_the_magistrates_court.pdf Shelf Number: 120186 Keywords: CourtsIndigenous PeoplesSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Gelb, Karen Title: Alternatives to Imprisonment: Community Views in Victoria Summary: Public and political debate about the use of imprisonment is vigorous. Over the past three decades Victoria’s prison population has steadily increased from 1,573 prisoners in 1977 to 2,467 prisoners in 1995 to 4,537 in 2010. Taking into account the growth of the general population, the imprisonment rate has increased by 50.9% over the last twenty years, from 69.9 prisoners per 100,000 adults in 1990 to 105.5 in 2010. In the last decade alone the imprisonment rate has grown by 22.1%. Over this same period the community corrections rate has increased by 19.5%. The increase in imprisonment rate may reflect changes in patterns of offending, in police practices or in the characteristics of people coming before the courts. However, it may also indicate that both parliament and the courts have been responding to perceived community concerns and debates about tougher sentencing. Such debates are not uncommon, with an increasing imprisonment rate being seen as a response that aims to reduce crime, deter would-be criminals and punish offenders both appropriately and in line with ‘community expectations’. Yet there is very little published scientific evidence in Victoria that identifies ‘community expectations’ – that reveals community attitudes to imprisonment and its alternatives. This report attempts to redress this dearth of published evidence on community views by examining the results of a survey of public attitudes to imprisonment and the use of alternatives to imprisonment. The evidence shows that community views are more complex and nuanced than is often characterised: Victorians are willing to accept alternatives to imprisonment as useful sentencing options. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 7, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/alternatives_to_imprisonment_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/alternatives_to_imprisonment_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 121271 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity CorrectionsIncarceration RatesPublic OpinionSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence Summary: Deterrence can be described as the prevention of crime through the fear of a threatened – or the experience of an actual – criminal sanction. General deterrence is aimed at reducing crime by directing the threat of that sanction at all potential offenders. Specific deterrence is aimed at reducing crime by applying a criminal sanction to a specific offender, in order to dissuade him or her from reoffending. Deterrence is only one of the purposes of sentencing in Victoria, determined by section 5(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The other purposes are: punishment, denunciation, rehabilitation and community protection (incapacitation). The scope of this paper is limited to examining the sentencing purpose of deterrence only – it does not present an analysis of the evidence of imprisonment’s effectiveness in regard to other sentencing purposes. There is an overlap in some studies when measuring deterrence and incapacitation; however, the paper does not draw conclusions on the effectiveness of imprisonment as a means of reducing crime through incapacitation. Deterrence theory is based upon the classical economic theory of rational choice, which assumes that people weigh up the costs and benefits of a particular course of action whenever they make a decision. Deterrence theory relies on the assumption that offenders have knowledge of the threat of a criminal sanction and then make a rational choice whether or not to offend based upon consideration of that knowledge. Rational choice theory, however, does not adequately account for a large number of offenders who may be considered ‘irrational’. Examples of such irrationality can vary in severity – there are those who are not criminally responsible due to mental impairment, those who are drug affected or intoxicated and those who simply act in a way that is contrary to their own best interests. Research shows that the majority of offenders entering the Victorian criminal justice system have a history of substance use that is directly related to their offending. That people are not perfectly rational and do not always make decisions that are in their own best interests is supported by studies in behavioural economics. Behavioural economic theory proposes that individuals make decisions on the basis of mperfect knowledge by employing ‘rules of thumb’, rather than strict logic, and are subject to limits on their willpower. People are also subject to a great number of patterns of deviation in judgment that occur in particular situations (known as ‘cognitive biases’), which influence decision-making in predictable – but often irrational – ways. The evidence from empirical studies of deterrence suggests that the threat of imprisonment generates a small general deterrent effect. However, the research also indicates that increases in the severity of penalties, such as increasing the length of terms of imprisonment, do not produce a corresponding increase in deterrence. It has been suggested that harsher penalties do not deter because many crimes are committed in circumstances where it is difficult to identify when, or if, offenders have considered the consequences of their criminal behaviour. In addition, otherwise rational individuals are more strongly influenced by the perceived immediate benefits of committing crime and individuals ‘discount’ the cost of future penalties. A consistent finding in deterrence research is that increases in the certainty of apprehension and punishment demonstrate a significant deterrent effect. Perceptions about the certainty of apprehension, for example, may counter the ‘present bias’ and reinforce the potential cost of committing crime. This result is qualified by the need for further research that separates deterrable from non-deterrable populations. Research into specific deterrence shows that imprisonment has, at best, no effect on the rate of reoffending and often results in a greater rate of recidivism. Possible explanations for this include that: prison is a learning environment for crime, prison reinforces criminal identity and may diminish or sever social ties that encourage lawful behaviour and imprisonment is not the appropriate response to many offenders who require treatment for the underlying causes of their criminality (such as drug, alcohol and mental health issues). Harsh prison conditions do not generate a greater deterrent effect, and the evidence shows that such conditions may lead to more violent reoffending. The empirical evidence on the effectiveness of imprisonment as a deterrent to crime suggests that the purposes of sentencing should be considered independently – according to their own merits – and that caution should be exercised if imprisonment is to be justified as a means of deterring all crimes and all kinds of offenders. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters: Accessed July 5, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/does_imprisonment_deter_a_review_of_the_evidence.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/does_imprisonment_deter_a_review_of_the_evidence.pdf Shelf Number: 121964 Keywords: DeterrenceDrug Abuse and CrimeImprisonmentPunishmentRational Choice TheorySentencing (Australia)Substance Abuse |
Author: Gelb, Karen Title: Predictors of Punitiveness: Community Views in Victoria Summary: This Sentencing Matters paper examines the predictors of punitiveness among a sample of Victorians. The paper is based on the Victorian component of a national survey of public attitudes to sentencing. This report shows that, in response to abstract questions about sentencing, members of the Victorian public are moderately punitive. Some people are more punitive than others, with several factors underlying punitive attitudes. Beliefs about the courts and sentencing, and perceptions of increasing crime, bear the strongest relationships with levels of punitiveness. Greater punitiveness is also more evident among those who use commercial/tabloid media as their main source of information on crime and punishment, as well as those with less education and those who attest to being politically conservative. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/predictors_of_punitiveness_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/predictors_of_punitiveness_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 122162 Keywords: Public OpinionPunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Gelb, Karen Title: Purposes of Sentencing: Community Views in Victoria Summary: This Sentencing Matters paper considers people's preferences for the main purposes of sentencing for offenders in a range of case studies. The paper is based on the Victorian component of a national survey of public attitudes to sentencing. The report shows that views on the purposes of sentencing are complex and nuanced. Participants in this study do not focus solely on punishment as a purpose of sentencing, but also see rehabilitation as an important purpose of sentencing in certain instances. These findings show that people rate prior offending as a significant aggravating factor. Indeed, members of the community who responded to this survey clearly appreciate the complexities of sentencing for different types of offender and offence. This appreciation and understanding has important implications for sentencers. Judges and magistrates are required to balance the various purposes of sentencing for every offender who comes before them. At the same time, they have to consider community concerns and expectations of what sentencing should achieve. This report provides evidence that, like the judges and magistrates themselves, people adopt an individualised approach to sentencing, tailoring their preferences for the main purpose of sentencing to the circumstances of each specific case before them. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters: Accessed July 26, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/purposes_of_sentencing_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/purposes_of_sentencing_community_views_in_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 122163 Keywords: Public OpinionPunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Stewart, Felicity Title: Aggravated Burglary: Current Sentencing Summary: The offence of burglary involves entering a premises as a trespasser with the intention to steal anything in the premises or to commit an offence involving assault or property damage. The offence has a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. To be guilty of the offence, it is sufficient to enter the premises with the relevant intention. The offence is committed even if, once inside the premises, the person does not actually carry out the additional intended offence involving theft, assault or property damage. Aggravated burglary occurs if, at the time of the burglary, the offender either carried a weapon or knew that a person was in the premises (or was reckless as to the presence of a person in the premises). The aggravated form of the offence has a much higher maximum penalty of 25 years – the second highest level of maximum penalty available in Victoria after life imprisonment. Both burglary and aggravated burglary are preparatory offences, because they involve an act (entering property) with the intention to commit a further offence. If, once the person has entered the premises, he or she actually commits the intended offence involving theft, assault or property damage, he or she would be charged and sentenced separately for both the offence of burglary and that further offence. Although aggravated burglary is a preparatory offence, in terms of the maximum penalty, it is ranked among the most serious offences in Victoria. Yet procedurally aggravated burglary is ranked with much less serious offences, as it is triable summarily in the Magistrates’ Court. Approximately 40% of aggravated burglary cases are sentenced in that court. The longest term of imprisonment that can be imposed by that court for any single charge is two years’ imprisonment. When sentencing a person for an offence, one of the factors that Victorian courts are required to consider is current sentencing practices for that offence. This is particularly difficult to do for aggravated burglary. The preparatory nature of the offence is one reason for this, because the gravity of a particular aggravated burglary will be affected by the nature of the offence that the person entering the premises intended to commit once inside. For example, did they break into the premises intending to steal cash while being aware that someone may have been asleep upstairs? Or did they break in knowing that a woman was alone at home and intending to rape her? The prevalence of aggravated burglary, combined with the unusually wide range of sentences imposed and the difficulty of identifying current sentencing practices for it, prompted the Sentencing Advisory Council to undertake a detailed study of sentencing practices for this offence. The study relies on details set out in written remarks made by judges when delivering their sentences. Because such comments are only available in the higher courts, this study does not include sentences imposed in the Magistrates’ Court other than the broad statistical sentencing patterns. The study is also limited to the variables that could be extracted consistently and reliably from the sentencing remarks. The study examines sentences imposed in 2008–09. The sentences imposed for these charges ranged from adjourned undertakings and fines to imprisonment for seven years. An immediate custodial sentence was the most frequently imposed sentence (55.2%). The median imprisonment term was two years. A wholly suspended sentence was the second most common sentence type (28.2% of charges) and the median term was two years. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council (Victoria), 2011. 112p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 27, 2011 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/aggravated_burglary_current_sentencing_practices_0.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/aggravated_burglary_current_sentencing_practices_0.pdf Shelf Number: 122176 Keywords: BurglaryPunishmentRobberySentencing (Australia) |
Author: Snowball, Lucy Title: The Profile of Offenders Receiving Suspended Sentences Summary: The aim of this study was to determine whether the profile of those receiving suspended sentences (of any length) changed over the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 and whether those receiving suspended sentences have different characteristics from those receiving a full-time custodial sentence of the same length (in this case six months). The first question was answered by analysing the distribution of certain characteristics of interest over the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 amongst offenders who had been given a suspended sentence. The second question was examined by looking at the bivariate relationship between sentence type and offender characteristics and then building a logistic regression model comparing the characteristics of offenders receiving a suspended sentence to those receiving a full-time custodial sentence. The study found that over the period 2000 to 2009, there has been a reduction in the proportion of suspended sentences imposed on property offenders and an increase in the proportion of suspended sentences imposed on persons convicted of driving and traffic and ‘other’ offences. Offenders are more likely to receive a suspended sentence (than a full-time custodial sentence of six months or less) if they are female, older than 35 years of age, have been convicted of an offence that does not involve serious violence, theft or breaching an order, do not have concurrent convictions, do not have prior convictions and are not legally represented. Courts do not appear to reserve suspended sentences for offenders who would otherwise have gone to prison. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2011. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper no. 63: Accessed August 18, 2011 at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb63.pdf/$file/bb63.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb63.pdf/$file/bb63.pdf Shelf Number: 122425 Keywords: Alternatives to ImprisonmentSentencing (Australia)Suspended Sentences |
Author: Gelb, Karen Title: Predictors of Confidence: Community Views in Victoria Summary: This report is the fourth in a series1 on community views about crime, courts and sentencing. It presents evidence about the predictors of confidence in the courts and sentencing in a random sample of 1,200 Victorians. This report shows that members of the Victorian public are moderately confident in their courts and in judges’ ability to impose appropriate sentences. Some people are more confident than others, with several factors underlying confidence in the courts and sentencing. People who are less punitive, who are more accepting of information presented by the media and who do not perceive crime to be increasing have the highest levels of confidence in the courts and sentencing. Higher levels of confidence are also evident among those with a higher income and younger respondents. The prominence of the attitudinal factors highlights the connections among confidence in sentencing, punitiveness and knowledge of crime. These connections have implications for the ways in which the courts and the criminal justice system more generally tackle the question of public confidence. Public confidence in the criminal justice system is a high priority for governments in many western countries, with public education and information campaigns, court media liaison officers, accessible websites, large national conferences and public surveys all contributing to efforts to promote confidence in the administration of justice. Understanding the drivers of confidence in the courts and sentencing is another important facet of these efforts. With greater understanding come greater opportunities for developing initiatives to improve public confidence. Given the strong constellation of factors identified in this report, any attempt to improve public confidence in the courts will, of necessity, need to consider levels of public punitiveness and people’s perceptions of crime as well. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters: Accessed September 2, 2011 at: http://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/predictors_of_confidence_community_views_in_victoria_0.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Austria URL: http://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/predictors_of_confidence_community_views_in_victoria_0.pdf Shelf Number: 122621 Keywords: CourtsPublic OpinionPunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Gelb, Karen Title: Predictors of Confidence: Community Views in Victoria Summary: This report is the fourth in a series1 on community views about crime, courts and sentencing. It presents evidence about the predictors of confidence in the courts and sentencing in a random sample of 1,200 Victorians. This report shows that members of the Victorian public are moderately confident in their courts and in judges’ ability to impose appropriate sentences. Some people are more confident than others, with several factors underlying confidence in the courts and sentencing. People who are less punitive, who are more accepting of information presented by the media and who do not perceive crime to be increasing have the highest levels of confidence in the courts and sentencing. Higher levels of confidence are also evident among those with a higher income and younger respondents. The prominence of the attitudinal factors highlights the connections among confidence in sentencing, punitiveness and knowledge of crime. These connections have implications for the ways in which the courts and the criminal justice system more generally tackle the question of public confidence. Public confidence in the criminal justice system is a high priority for governments in many western countries, with public education and information campaigns, court media liaison officers, accessible websites, large national conferences and public surveys all contributing to efforts to promote confidence in the administration of justice. Understanding the drivers of confidence in the courts and sentencing is another important facet of these efforts. With greater understanding come greater opportunities for developing initiatives to improve public confidence. Given the strong constellation of factors identified in this report, any attempt to improve public confidence in the courts will, of necessity, need to consider levels of public punitiveness and people’s perceptions of crime as well. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters Series: Accessed September 6, 2011 at: http://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/predictors_of_confidence_community_views_in_victoria_0.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/predictors_of_confidence_community_views_in_victoria_0.pdf Shelf Number: 122648 Keywords: CourtsPublic OpinionPunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Fisher, Geoff Title: Causing Serious Injury – Recklessly and Intentionally Current Sentencing Practices Summary: This report focuses on intentionally causing serious injury and recklessly causing serious injury and examines data collected from sentencing remarks on 228 cases sentenced in the higher courts in 2008–09. Key features of causing serious injury offences were: Punching was the most common action used by offenders (49.8% of charges) and kicking to the head was the least common (7.8%). The offender used a weapon in nearly two-thirds of charges (63.7%). Injuries sustained by victims were most likely to be cuts or lacerations (59.8%) and were least likely to be a permanent disability (3.9%), while one in five suffered head injuries (21.1%) and nearly one-quarter suffered loss of consciousness (23.4%). The victim was more likely to be known to the offender (55.2%) than a stranger (40.2%), but very unlikely to be a partner or ex-partner (7.0%). The vast majority of offenders pleaded guilty to the offence (89.8%). Over one-quarter of offenders had served an imprisonment sentence prior to sentencing, and two-thirds had committed a previous offence as an adult (65.8%). Nearly four in five offenders had at least one personal background factor mentioned in sentencing remarks (79.4%), nearly two-thirds had a substance abuse issue and one-quarter suffered abuse or neglect as a child (27.2%). The report examines the extent to which characteristics of causing serious injury cases influence sentencing outcomes. Statistical modelling finds that criminal history, namely prior imprisonment and prior offending, is the primary factor determining whether an offender receives an immediate custodial sentence. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011. 72p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2011 at: http://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/causing_serious_injury_recklessly_and_intentionally_current_sentencing_practices.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/causing_serious_injury_recklessly_and_intentionally_current_sentencing_practices.pdf Shelf Number: 122733 Keywords: AssaultsInjuriesSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Hudson, Nina Title: Sentencing Appeals in Victoria: Statistical Research Report Summary: The Court of Appeal plays a crucial role in sentencing in Victoria. It reviews sentences imposed by judges of the County Court and the Trial Division of the Supreme Court and determines whether an error has been made in the sentencing process. In giving its reasons for judgment, the Court of Appeal may also provide guidance to sentencing judges about the correct approach to sentencing. Despite the importance of sentence appeals, there is little published research in Victoria on the broader operation of sentence appeals and patterns of decision-making in sentence appeal cases heard by the Court of Appeal. A number of concerns have been expressed in recent years in relation to sentence appeals in Victoria. In 2009 the President of the Court of Appeal and in 2010 the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (which includes the Court of Appeal) respectively expressed concerns about what was then a large and growing backlog of criminal appeals in the Court of Appeal. Questions have also been raised about the number of Crown appeals against sentence as well as the principles that apply to such appeals. Other concerns raised relate to more substantive issues in sentence appeals, including errors found by the Court of Appeal to have been made in the sentencing process and resentencing outcomes in successful sentence appeals. At the same time a number of reforms have also been made to the laws governing sentence appeals and to the practices and procedures that apply to sentence appeals. One such reform has been the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), which has changed the law in relation to Crown and offender appeals. Another significant reform has been the introduction by the Supreme Court of an ‘intensive management’ model of criminal appeal cases based on the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales. The purpose of this reform is to reduce the backlog of criminal appeals and reduce delay in the hearing and determination of criminal appeals. Other changes to practice and procedure include the adoption of two-judge sentence appeal hearings (rather than a bench of three), the delivery of judgments on the same day as hearings where possible and more stringent monitoring of compliance with procedural timetables. The creation of a new Judge of Appeal position in 2009 has taken the number of Judges of Appeal from 11 to 12 (including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the President of the Court of Appeal). An increase in the number of judges sitting as Judges of Appeal has also been facilitated by the constant sitting of at least two trial judges as acting Judges of Appeal. Pursuant to its statutory functions of providing statistical information on sentencing and conducting research and disseminating information on sentencing matters, the Sentencing Advisory Council (‘the Council’) has undertaken this project, which aims to describe and analyse data on sentence appeals in Victoria in the context of Victorian sentencing law and practice. The purpose of this report is to address the absence of data available on the operation of sentence appeals and to provide analysis to assist in continued discussions of the concerns that have been raised. Details: Melbourne, Victoria: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 13, 2012 at https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/sentence_appeals_in_victoria_statistical_research_report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/sentence_appeals_in_victoria_statistical_research_report.pdf Shelf Number: 124523 Keywords: Appellate Court (Australia)Sentencing (Australia) |
Author: Taussig, Isabel Title: Sentencing Snapshot: Homicide and Related Offences Summary: This briefing paper describes sentencing outcomes for adult offenders convicted of the offence of homicide and related offences between 2009 and 2010 in the NSW Criminal Courts. Aim: To describe the penalties imposed on convicted homicide offenders. Summary: The average age of an adult offender convicted of homicide in NSW during the years 2009 to 2010 was 35 years. Of these, 84.1 per cent were male, and 59.5 per cent had no prior convictions in the previous five years. The most common penalty imposed on homicide offenders was a full-time prison sentence. Among those that received prison sentences, the average minimum term was just over 8.5 years and the average aggregate sentence was 11.8 years. Of those who committed a murder, 100 percent received a prison sentence, with an average minimum term of 20 years and an average aggregate sentence of 25 years. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper no. 76: Accessed April 12, 2012 at: Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 124943 Keywords: HomicidesSentencing (Australia)Violent CrimeViolent Offenders |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Baseline Sentencing Report Summary: This report is the Sentencing Advisory Council’s response to the Attorney-General’s request for advice on the introduction of baseline sentences for specified offences. The Council was requested to provide advice on the following matters: a. the levels of baseline sentence to be legislated for offences to which the baseline sentencing regime will apply; b. whether offences additional to those committed to by the government should be included, either in the initial introduction of baseline sentences or subsequently; c. whether the legislation should provide for different levels of baseline sentence for a particular offence to be applicable in different circumstances, or for certain offences to be redefined to achieve better applicability of baseline sentences in different circumstances; d. how baseline sentences should best apply in cases involving multiple offences; e. the amendments required to relevant legislation to introduce baseline sentencing; f. the likely effects of recommendations and options put forward by the Council on sentencing levels for the relevant offences and on the numbers of persons serving custodial and non-custodial sentences; and g. any other matters the Council considers relevant. This report contains recommendations relating to proposed baseline levels as well as recommendations about how these levels should be applied in practice. The Council has formulated these recommendations in accordance with the policy objectives and intent of the terms of reference. The recommendations are closely interrelated and are all based on the implementation of the recommended baseline model. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012. 236p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2012 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/baseline_sentencing_report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/baseline_sentencing_report.pdf Shelf Number: 125132 Keywords: PunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Attitudes to Offence Seriousness Summary: The Community Attitudes to Offence Seriousness report presents key findings from community panels conducted by the Council throughout Victoria. The report outlines the 244 participants’ judgments of offence seriousness and how they weighed the factors that render different offences more or less serious. The research was conducted as part of the Maximum Penalties project, a review by the Council of the maximum penalties for 250 offences to be included in a new Crimes Bill. The findings indicate that community members have divergent views about the relative seriousness of offences. The judgment of offence seriousness is subjective and can be influenced by a range of factors. Judgments of offence seriousness by individual members of the community can vary according to each person’s experiences, perceptions and views. If the views of this group of respondents are representative of community thinking, it appears the community does not share a single set of common attitudes towards relative offence seriousness. However, despite the variation in attitudes to offence seriousness for some offences, there was consensus among participants that offences involving direct harms to people are considered the most serious. In particular, there was a high level of agreement among participants that offences involving the deliberate infliction of harm, sexually violent offences and sexual offences against children are among the most serious offences. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessede May 8, 2012 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/community_attitudes_to_offence_seriousness.pdf Year: 0 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/community_attitudes_to_offence_seriousness.pdf Shelf Number: 125181 Keywords: Offense SeriousnessPublic OpinionPunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Ritchie, Donald Title: How Much Does Imprisonment Protect the Community Through Incapacitation? Summary: Sentences in Victoria may be imposed for one or more of the following purposes (Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(1)): 1. punishment; 2. denunciation; 3. rehabilitation; 4. deterrence; and 5. community protection. As part of the Council’s statutory function of conducting research and disseminating information on sentencing matters, this paper examines the effectiveness of imprisonment in achieving community protection through incapacitative methods. While deterrence and rehabilitation also seek to protect the community from further offending, incapacitation is a means of protecting the community by removing or reducing the physical capacity of an offender to offend. The most obvious form of incapacitation is a sentence of imprisonment. However, there are other forms of limited or partial incapacitation, including curfews and restrictions on movement (such as home detention), monitoring and reporting requirements as well as forms of drug therapy. This paper focuses on imprisonment, as it is the most severe, iconic and resource-intensive form of incapacitation. It is the form most commonly assumed to be effective and is the focus of most empirical research into this subject. The incapacitative effect of imprisonment presents a compelling logic: while in prison, an offender cannot offend in the community. Consequently, the incapacitation of an offender may be expected to prevent crime that an offender would commit were he or she at liberty in the community. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, Victoria, 2012, 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Sentencing Matters: Accessed August 8, 2012 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/how_much_does_imprisonment_protect_the_community_through_incapacitation_0.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/how_much_does_imprisonment_protect_the_community_through_incapacitation_0.pdf Shelf Number: 125908 Keywords: ImprisonmentIncapacitationPunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: New South Wales Sentencing Council Title: Standard Non-parole Periods: A background report by the NSW Sentencing Council Summary: On 30 March 2009, the Attorney General requested that the Council examine standard non-parole periods (SNPPs) and guideline judgments, in accordance with the following terms of reference: 1. Monitor the rates of offending and sentencing patterns for sexual offences not contained in the Table of SNPPs, with a view to their possible inclusion in the Table at a later date; 2. Give consideration to standardising the SNPPs for sexual (and other) offences within a band of 40–60% of the available maximum penalty, subject to the possibility of individual exceptions, by reference to an assessment of the incidence of offending and special considerations relating thereto; 3. Consider potential additions to the SNPP scheme, involving the level or levels at which the SNPP might be appropriately set; 4. Give consideration to the establishment of a transparent mechanism by which a decision is made to include a particular offence in the Table, and by which the relevant SNPP is set; and 5. Consider the identification of sexual offences that might justify an application for a guideline judgment, following its ongoing monitoring of relevant sentencing patterns. By reason of the overlap between the terms of reference given to the Council; and the general responsibility of the Council to review and report on sentencing trends and practices, the Attorney General has invited the two agencies to work in collaboration with each other in relation to the Sentencing Reference. Details: Sydney: New South Wales Sentencing Council, 2011. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 28, 2012 at http://www.sentencingcouncil.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/sentencing/documents/pdf/finalreport2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/agdbasev7wr/sentencing/documents/pdf/finalreport2011.pdf Shelf Number: 126133 Keywords: Sentencing (Australia)Sentencing Guidelines (Australia)Sentencing Reform (Australia) |
Author: Byles, Dennis Title: Trafficking in a Commercial Quantity of Drugs Summary: This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes for the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs and details the age and gender of people sentenced for this offence in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria between 2006–07 and 2010–11. The Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic) provides a set of trafficking offences that distinguishes between large commercial, commercial and less than commercial quantities of illicit drugs. A person who prepares, manufactures, sells, exchanges, agrees to sell, offers for sale or has in his or her possession for sale a drug of dependence without being authorised or licensed to do so is guilty of trafficking in a drug of dependence. The maximum penalties that apply vary depending on the nature and quantity of the drug involved, as well as the age of the recipient of the drugs, with higher maximum penalties for supplying to persons aged under 18 years. This report examines the offence of trafficking in a commercial quantity of a drug (or drugs) of dependence to an adult. The amount of the drug that constitutes a commercial quantity will depend on the type of drug involved. Different types of drugs can be combined in order to achieve a commercial quantity. Trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs is an indictable offence that carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of up to 3,000 penalty units. Indictable offences are more serious offences triable before a judge and jury in the County or Supreme Court. Trafficking in a commercial quantity of drugs was the principal offence in 1.5% of cases sentenced in the higher courts between 2006–07 and 2010–11. As with previous publications in this series, this report presents a snapshot of first instance sentences in the higher courts of Victoria. A section on appeals has been included immediately before the Summary section of this report. Information on sentences that have changed on appeal is also noted in other sections of this report. Unless otherwise noted, the data represent sentences imposed at first instance. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2012. 12p. Source: Sentencing Snapshot No. 130: Internet Resource: Accessed October 8, 2012 at https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_130_sentencing_trends_for_trafficking_in_a_commercial_quantity_of_drugs_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_august_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/snapshot_130_sentencing_trends_for_trafficking_in_a_commercial_quantity_of_drugs_in_the_higher_courts_of_victoria_august_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 126638 Keywords: Drug Trafficking (Australia)Sentencing (Australia) |
Author: Fitzgerald, Jacqueline Title: Why is the NSW Prison Population Falling? Summary: Aim: After steadily increasing for more than a decade, from mid 2009 the NSW prison population started falling. This paper aims to identify why this has occurred. Method: The study relied upon administrative data. Corrections data was considered to gauge the size, timing and nature of changes in the prison population. Police recorded crime and court data were analysed to measure changes in offending and sentencing which eventually have a bearing on prison numbers. Results: Corrections data showed that the decrease in the prison population was limited to sentenced prisoners and was driven by a reduction in the number of offenders serving sentences for Assault, Break and enter, Theft and Traffic offences. Break and enter, Theft and Assault, prisoners appear to have decreased, in part, because the incidence of these offences have fallen. There have also been moves away from the use of imprisonment as a penalty for each of the four offences whether because fewer offenders are being imprisoned or because the average sentence length has fallen. Conclusion: In 2011, fewer offenders were serving prison sentences for Assault, Break and enter, Theft and Traffic offences. This appears to be due to both a reduction in the number of offenders in court and changes in sentencing practices for certain offences. It is beyond the scope of this paper to ascertain whether changes in sentencing practice reflect a move towards more lenient sentencing or whether they have resulted from changes in the severity of offences themselves. The reduction in the number of offenders for some offences appears to be due, at least in part, to a reduction in the volume of crime. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 6p. Source: Crime and Justice Statistics Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 80: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2012 at http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb80.pdf/$file/bb80.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/bb80.pdf/$file/bb80.pdf Shelf Number: 126931 Keywords: Corrections (Australia)Incarceration Rates (Australia)Prison Population (Australia)Sentencing (Australia) |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Reoffending Following Sentencing in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria Summary: An important aspect of the Sentencing Advisory Council’s work is examining the effects of sentencing on an offender’s subsequent behaviour. This is one element of the more general question of whether, and to what extent, sentencing can achieve its various purposes. Information about the effects of sentencing should inform decision-making in relation to sentencing policy and practice. In order to provide this information, the Council has developed a database to examine the nature and extent of reoffending following sentencing in Victoria. This report uses statistical techniques to estimate the effect of each of a number of variables on the likelihood of reoffending. The variables include the type of sentence imposed for the initial offence as well as factors such as the offender’s age, gender and criminal history. These techniques enable an examination of whether sentencing has an effect on reoffending in Victoria and if it does: • how the effect of sentencing compares with the effects of other factors; and • the extent to which this varies according to the type of sentence imposed. Details: Melbourne: Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council, 2013. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2013 at: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/reoffending_following_sentencing_in_the_magistrates_court_of_victoria.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: https://sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/files/reoffending_following_sentencing_in_the_magistrates_court_of_victoria.pdf Shelf Number: 128978 Keywords: RecidivismReoffendingSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Ringland, Clare Title: Sentencing Outcomes for Those Assessed for Intensive Correction Order Suitability Summary: Aim: To examine outcomes of assessments for intensive correction orders, including the penalties imposed on those deemed unsuitable. Method: Assessment data for intensive correction orders were obtained from Corrective Services NSW and linked to finalised court appearances between 1 October 2010 and 30 September 2012. The proportion of assessment episodes associated with a finalised court appearance where an intensive correction order was imposed and the penalties imposed on offenders who did not receive an intensive correction order were examined. Results: 2,580 assessment episodes were identified, with 93 per cent (n=2,389) linked to a finalised court appearance. Of these assessment episodes linked to a court appearance, 55 per cent resulted in an intensive correction order. Of the assessment episodes linked to a finalised court appearance resulting in a sentence other than an intensive correction order, the most common penalties imposed were imprisonment (58%), a suspended sentence with supervision (16%) and a suspended sentence without supervision (8%). Conclusion: In line with intensive correction orders being introduced as an alternative to full-time imprisonment, the vast majority of offenders assessed for an intensive correction order who do not receive one instead receive a penalty of imprisonment or an alternative form of imprisonment (i.e., home detention or a suspended sentence). Details: Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2013. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Issue Paper no. 86: Accessed July 8, 2013 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB86.pdf/$file/BB86.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB86.pdf/$file/BB86.pdf Shelf Number: 129276 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-based CorrectionsIntensive SupervisionSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Calculating the Baseline Offence Median: Report Summary: This report has been prepared to assist Victorian courts and legal practitioners, as well as interested members of the community, to understand the implications of the Sentencing Amendment (Baseline Sentences) Act 2014 (Vic) (the Act) for current sentencing practices. The Act provides that the baseline sentence represents 'the sentence that Parliament intends to be the median sentence for sentences imposed for that offence'. Median (midpoint average) sentences are set for six offences: culpable driving causing death, incest, persistent sexual abuse of a child under 16, sexual penetration of a child under 12, trafficking in a large commercial quantity of a drug of dependence, and murder. In the report, the Council explains: - basic information about medians and how they are calculated - the baseline median counting rules set under the Act and how they differ from those used in the Council's Sentencing Snapshot series - the difference between baseline medians now and the median set under the Act - how the median sentence for an offence will vary according to the number of years' sentencing data analysed - why it is difficult to predict what new sentencing patterns will emerge following implementation of the Act - how baseline medians can be achieved even if the courts impose non-imprisonment sentences for baseline offences, and/or imprisonment sentences that diverge from the baseline median. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2014 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Calculating%20the%20Baseline%20Offence%20Median%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Calculating%20the%20Baseline%20Offence%20Median%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 133397 Keywords: PunishmentSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders in the Higher Courts: Imposition, Duration, and Conditions Summary: Using both quantitative and qualitative analyses of judges' sentencing remarks, Community Correction Orders in the Higher Courts examines CCOs imposed by Victorian higher courts in the 18 months to June 2013. 1.1 This report builds on the findings from the Council's Community Correction Orders: Monitoring Report, which examines a range of factors associated with the use of community correction orders (CCOs). This report presents the findings of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of sentencing remarks for CCOs imposed by the Supreme and County Courts (the higher courts) between January 2012 and June 2013 (inclusive). The analysis has been undertaken to identify case variables influencing the imposition of CCOs, long CCOs (over 2 years duration), and the most frequently imposed conditions. 1.2 The methodology can be summarised as follows: - the sentencing remarks of 437 of the 460 CCOs imposed in the higher courts over this 18 month period are analysed; - the quantitative analysis examines 32 case variables, focusing on the offender, the offence, the victim, and the legal process, and is based on a binary logistic regression; - the imposition of CCOs is compared to short terms of imprisonment for armed robbery, aggravated burglary, and cause serious injury (both intentionally and recklessly); and - the qualitative analysis considers 157 CCO sentencing remarks and a smaller sample of short terms of imprisonment remarks involving the examination of a range of variables associated with the case characteristics. 1.3 With respect to the imposition of a CCO relative to a short term of imprisonment, the quantitative analysis finds that: - the majority of case variables do not predict if a CCO or short term of imprisonment will be imposed; - the only variable that consistently increases the likelihood of the imposition of a CCO (although non-significant for armed robbery) is whether the offender is currently employed and/or involved in an educational program; and - the involvement of drugs and/or alcohol in the offence has an inconsistent predictive influence, increasing the likelihood of a CCO for aggravated burglary, decreasing the likelihood for armed robbery, and having no consistent predictive influence for serious injury. 1.4 Examination of the specific case variables collected for the qualitative research reveals that, for certain judges, some additional factors influence the imposition of a CCO relative to a short term of imprisonment for specific cases. For example: - youth, mental illness, and a significant delay between the offending and sentencing, particularly where accompanied by demonstrated efforts at rehabilitation, influence the imposition of a CCO in some cases; and - previous offending and the seriousness of the instant offending consistently influence the imposition of an order of imprisonment. 1.5 As each sentencing decision is the result of instinctive synthesis, the differences in the sentences imposed could point to differences in the case facts (for example, offender age, nature and extent of prior offending). However, relevant similarities in those case facts, as evidenced by the sentencing remarks on either side of the dispositional divide, indicate that the difference may also be attributable to differences in the weighting of similar case facts. 1.6 With respect to duration, the qualitative analysis of sentencing remarks reveals that the courts provide little explicit guidance on, or clear explanation of, the sentencing purposes intended to be achieved by the imposition of a long CCO. Where comment has been made, the length of the order has been determined by issues of parity, the need to allow appropriate time for completion of rehabilitation courses, or the decision to make the sentence more onerous. 1.7 With respect to the combination of conditions attached to each CCO, the majority of quantitative variables do not make a significant contribution to predicting when a particular CCO condition will be imposed. There is also little judicial comment in the sentencing remarks that directly addresses the sentencing purposes for imposing certain CCO conditions. 1.8 The methodology examines the subjective and objective factors that interact in the complex sentencing process. There are inherent difficulties in clearly assessing the role of quantitative and qualitative factors in judgments based on instinctive synthesis. However, traditional legal analysis of sentencing remarks - in conjunction with the quantitative and qualitative techniques used in this study - allows certain inferences to be made. 1.9 A CCO is a new and different form of sanction. It is not a rebranded version of earlier forms of community-based sanctions. A much broader range of conditions can be imposed on a CCO, and a CCO can be imposed in the higher courts for a period up to the maximum penalty for an offence. However, the duration (85% - 2 years) and conditions attached to CCOs are very similar to those attached to community-based orders (CBOs). An analysis of a range of case factors indicates that the majority of these variables do not contribute to predicting the imposition of a CCO or the duration or conditions attached to a CCO. 1.10 Further research is necessary to gain a better understanding of what is influencing sentencing behaviour in the imposition of CCOs. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2014 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20in%20the%20Higher%20Courts.pdf Shelf Number: 134311 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity-Based CorrectionsCriminal CourtsSentencing (Australia) |
Author: O'Neill, Emma Title: Major drug offences: current sentencing practices Summary: This report examines current sentencing practices for the three reference offences: - cultivating a commercial quantity of narcotic plants; - trafficking in a drug of dependence in a commercial quantity; and - trafficking in a drug of dependence in a large commercial quantity. The report covers the five-year reference period from 2008-09 to 2012-13. In total, over 600 cases have been analysed in order to present the following information for each of the reference offences: - a profile of sentencing factors (for example, plea entered, prospects of rehabilitation); - high-level sentencing outcomes for the offence as a whole; and - profiles of particular sub-groups of cases and their sentencing outcomes. This report is the Council's third on current sentencing practices. The Council is also examining current sentencing practices for major driving offences in an upcoming report. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 16, 2015 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Major%20Drug%20Offences%20Current%20Sentencing%20Practices.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Major%20Drug%20Offences%20Current%20Sentencing%20Practices.pdf Shelf Number: 135241 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug TraffickingSentencing (Australia) |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders Monitoring Report Summary: The community correction order (CCO) was introduced as a sentencing option in Victoria in January 2012. The purpose of a CCO is to provide a non-custodial sentencing option that is more flexible than the orders it replaced, in particular the community-based order (CBO), the intensive correction order (ICO), and the combined custody and treatment order (CCTO). Relative to the orders that have been replaced, CCOs can be imposed for longer maximum durations in the higher courts and all courts can order a higher maximum number of hours for unpaid community work. This allows the courts to use CCOs for a wider range of offending behaviours. Also, a greater range of conditions can be attached to a CCO than to the orders it replaced. This provides the courts with increased capacity to address the specific circumstances of the offender. The new order was introduced at a time when another sentencing option, the suspended sentence of imprisonment, was being phased out. CCOs are also intended to be a replacement for suspended sentences in cases where the court considers immediate custody unnecessary to fulfil the purposes for which the sentence is imposed. In light of these sentencing reforms, this report examines three questions: 1. How have sentencers used CCOs and what are the characteristics of offenders who receive them? 2. Have CCOs only replaced CBOs and ICOs in sentencing practice? 3. To what extent, if any, have CCOs replaced suspended sentences of imprisonment in sentencing practice? The questions have been addressed in relation to the Magistrates' Court and the higher courts (the County and Supreme Courts) through analyses of relevant sentencing data. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2014. 72p. Source: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Monitoring%20Report_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Monitoring%20Report_0.pdf Shelf Number: 136086 Keywords: Alternatives to Incarceration Community-Based Corrections Criminal CourtsSentencing (Australia) |