Mandatory Sentencing In Australia

This paper will be focusing on the controversial issue of mandatory minimum sentences in Canada. There has been much debate over this topic, as it has quickly become implemented for the sentencing of drug offenders, drug-related crimes and banned firearm offences. I will argue that every case that comes through the criminal justice system is different and deserves a fair trial with a sentence that is not already determined for them. There have been many cases where the judge has no discretion in the sentence due to the mandatory minimum sentences pre-determined for the case, no matter what the aggravating or mitigating factors were. I will argue that the mandatory minimum sentences in Canada should be reduced or eliminated as

The criminal justice system within Australia is the means through which those who break rules stipulated within legislation and legal regulations are brought to justice in the form of punishment. The legal and non-legal measures implemented are applied across all aspects of crime. The legal measures include all institutions and processes enabled by law to deal with aspects of the criminal justice system. Non-legal measures include diversionary programs such as restorative justice. The use of non-legal measure in achieving justice is generally seen when dealing with young offenders. It is used in an attempt to allow the

Judges and magistrates must consider a wide variety of factors when determining a sentence for an offender. Primarily, the sentence must coincide with the statutory guidelines e.g that set out in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), and the judicial guidelines that set precedent for all judges and magistrates in the state. Within this legislation are the purposes for which a sentence may be imposed, types of penalties, minimum/maximum sentences and mandatory sentences.

For example there have been amendments in under provision of crimes amendment act 1982 in New South Wales and section 8 of the crimes amendment act 1986 in Victoria to enable judges to impose less severe sentencing. Also in Victoria and South Australia life sentencing prisoners can apply for minimum set terms in court. Of course it relies on their good behaviour, but punishment does not help in changing their criminal attitude or behaviour. Though abolition of prison is not something can be achieved overnight, of course it is a very long term goal. We have example of Sydney siege, the worst offenders should be behind the bars to protect society. An article by Carol Lawson outlines the strategies for reducing recidivism by focusing on reforming prisons conditions and to turn them into more rehabilitative place, encourage prisoners’ transition to society that is to support ‘throughcare programs’ and to divert offenders from prisons to alternative punishment. Self- report also helps to measure the level of stress and discomfort of prisoners in

The concept of mandatory sentencing is a relatively new idea in the legal field. It was first introduced in 1951 with the Boggs Act, and it made simple marijuana possession a minimum of two to ten years with a $20,000 fine. This was eventually repealed by Congress in 1970, but mandatory sentences came back with the passage of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. Since then, the scope and presence of mandatory sentencing has only grown, especially mandatory sentences for drug related offenses. Recently, there has been a growing concern over the use and implementation of mandatory minimum sentencing, with many believing it reduces a judge’s ability to give out a sentence that they feel accordingly fits the crime. Many advocates for mandatory

Statutory and judicial guidelines inform the exercise of judicable discretion in the area of sentencing. They aim to provide greater uniformity in sentencing matters and enhance the integrity of the process. Judicial guidelines are set by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. They are not binding but their aim is to structure discretion. For example, for the offence of culpable driving the court has indicated that in the normal course a custodial sentence should be imposed unless exceptional circumstances exist. In terms of statutory guidelines a number of acts inform the exercise of judicial discretion. For example, the Crimes Act 1900 NSW prescribes the maximum sentence that may be imposed for various offences. The Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 NSW also prescribes general guidelines in relation to sentencing. For example it

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws entail binding prison terms to a certain length for people who have been convicted of state or federal crimes. These intransigent, “universally adaptable” sentencing laws may seem like an easy and quick solution for crime. However, these laws prevent judges from suiting the punishment to the criminal according to their offenses. Mandatory minimum sentencing causes not only state but federal prisons to overcrowd, extortionate tax costs, and deflect from law enforcement funds.

In the article “Mandatory Minimum Sentencing: A Failed Policy,” the author highlights how mandatory minimum sentencing is a policy that has failed in attempt to put an end to drug crimes. Batey stated that the attempts of federal and state thought that they could “get tough on crime,” particularly drug offense, by eliminating the sentence discretion of judges and restoring it with long minimum sentences that applied regardless of defendant's individual circumstances (Batey 24). Moreover, the mandatory minimum sentences take authority away from the judge and give it to the prosecutor, who decides whether to charge the defendant with a crime carrying a long minimum sentence or much less offense. Withal, mandatory minimum sentences have failed due to giving America’s power too much power in plea bargaining, an imbalance that has led to the incarceration of persons too fearful to insist on a hearing that might have released them (Batey 25). Finally, Batey mentions that mandatory minimum sentence policy has filled prisons with the wrong people, which are minor players, not drug kingpins, and even some who are innocent (Batey 25).

Today, more than 2 million Americans are incarcerated in either a state facility, federal correctional facility or a local installation (Batey,2002). Due to longer sentences, incorporating harsh sentencing guidelines, and mandatory minimum punishments (NeSmith,2015). With each inmate costing taxpayers an average of $30,000 annually. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 were increased sentences for a broad range of offenses, as well as establishing federal penalties for most murders and a large number of other crimes already subject to state law (Batey,2002). In addition to reducing the discretion of state judicial systems; as well as 85 percent of sentence satisfaction and establishing a mandatory life sentence for those convicted of three serious violent crimes or drug offenses (NeSmith,2015). .

Mandatory sentencing is not anything new. It began in the 1970s. The main purpose for mandatory sentencing was to try to get rid of the drug lords and to eliminate most of the nation’s street drug selling. It was to impose that the same crime would have the same sentence all over the nation. Some of the negatives that rose from mandatory sentencing were nonviolent drug offenders and first time offenders who were receiving harsh sentences. Inmate populations and correction costs increased and pushed states to build more prisons. Judges were overloaded with these cases, and lengthy prison terms were mandated to these young offenders. Mandatory sentencing is an interesting topic in which I would like to discuss my opinions in going against

Minimum Mandatory Sentence 1. A detailed description of the issue, along with any development and changes to the focus of its aspects that have occurred over time Minimum Mandatory Sentence started in “1892 with only six offences” (Wikipedia, para. 13). Minimum Mandatory Sentence is a permanent minimum punishment for certain offences that the government has set in the justice system. In Canada there are four categories that the minimum mandatory sentences are split into. The first type of mandatory sentence is life sentence which is imposed upon convictions for “first degree murder, second degree murder and treason”

When there is inconsistency in sentencing, it will lead to a breakdown of public confidence in our criminal justice system. The idea of ‘just deserts’ implies that similar offences with similar offenders in similar circumstances should be punished in a similar way. Victims and witnesses are more likely to cooperate if they ‘trust’ that judges will give a sentence that is fair. Disparities in sentencing outcomes can lead to injustice to an offender and even to the victim if similar cases are not given similar sentences. Furthermore, inconsistent sentencing makes it almost impossible for offenders to predict their sentence.

However, under further analysis, it becomes apparent that the verdict acts more as a deterrent rather than an upstanding legal configuration. The legal system, for the average person in New South Wales, is only a figure of authority that deters the individuals from breaking the law, which some may say is what it is there to do. Conversely, we need it to do more than that, we need it to properly meet our requests when we are involved in legal

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

Each year in America many people received prison sentences for crimes that pose little if any danger or harm to our society. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing in the American Justice System has long been argued by both Lawmakers and the public. We will go over some of the history of mandatory minimum sentences as well as the many pros and cons to these types of sentences. Some examples of pros and cons are the overall effect on public safety, the effect on the offenders, the cost to taxpayers, the lack of discretion for Judge’s, and whether the law should be repealed.