Mandatory Sentencing Essay
Does the Punishment Fit the Crime?
Queensland Mandatory Sentencing
Good Morning Class, today I will be speaking on a issue that, due to recent changes in legislation has sparked both support and outrage within the greater Queensland community. The issue of course, being the notion of mandatory sentencing. In recent years, Queensland and other States, including New South Wales and Victoria, have introduced mandatory sentencing laws for certain types of offences. The Queensland Government is now proposing to adopt further mandatory sentencing laws, as a part of a range of measures to deal with alcohol and other related violence. During this presentation I will be addressing you firstly on the notion of mandatory sentencing, before delving …show more content…
into greater detail into three of the main ethical and moral concerns that shadow this seemingly simple issue.
What is Mandatory sentencing?
Mandatory sentencing laws are generally considered to be laws that specify a minimum penalty or a fixed penalty that a judge must enforce in relation to a particular offence or type of offender (e.g.
a repeat offender). Usually, criminal laws in Australia set a maximum penalty for a particular crime, however a minimum penalty is generally not established. Judges therefore maintain discretion when deciding outcomes on a case by case basis. This decision is made by carefully studying the relevant laws which serve to outline the purposes of sentencing, the types of penalties available, and the range of factors to be taken into account including mitigating and aggravating factors when determining a suitable sentence.
Mandatory sentencing laws are not a completely new concept in Queensland or Australian criminal law. The abolition of the death penalty during the twentieth century resulted in almost all States and Territories adopting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Although, since 1982 certain states such as New South Wales have turned to a more relaxed approach, mandatory life imprisonment remains the penalty for murder in Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory. (Austilli, …show more content…
2008)
Mandatory sentencing is a direct contradiction to the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
The largest issue that surrounds mandatory sentencing is that it raises serious concerns about the operation of the separation of powers, specifically between the executive and the judiciary branches of government. As you are probably all aware, Australia’s political system is founded on a clear separation of powers whereby the power of government is balanced between the legislature and executive that establish laws, and the judiciary who interprets these laws. The implementation of mandatory sentencing means that the terms of sentencing, a key aspect of ‘interpreting laws’, are determined by the executive and are not reviewable by the courts.
The significance of the separation of powers doctrine should not be lost. The document is designed to limit the power of the government to impose its will on the public. It is intended to protect the public from the dictatorship and oppression by the government, to preserve and protect the freedom of all individuals from the abuse of government power. Mandatory sentencing compromises the well-thought-out foundations of our democracy, to address popular demand.
Mandatory sentencing fails to consider an offender’s circumstances Mandatory sentencing uses a “one size fits all” methodology which doesn’t properly consider the circumstances of the offender.
The prevailing thought on why Mandatory sentences are in public favour is because they appeal on the basis that they provide consistency in sentencing, by removing the discretion of the judiciary to decide on the most appropriate sentence. However multiple cases across Australia, such as Crown V Manse 2004 - in which a homeless man was sentenced to 12 months prison after stealing a towel off a clothes line under Victoria’s three strike law – provide unequivocal evidence that a one size fits all approach serves to negatively impact the offender, on the basis of the punishment not fitting the
crime.
Giving judges and magistrates discretion maximises the chances of finding a sentence which will address the causes of the offending and reduce the chance of reoffending. Evidence shows that therapeutic approaches to sentencing, such as community and treatment-based orders, can substantially reduce reoffending rates compared with prison as shown on this graph. This notion was backed by several high ranking judicial officials with Chief Justice Gibbsvii slamming new mandatory sentencing laws in Queensland “even in the case of a most serious crime ...there may exist wide differences in the degree of culpability of particular offenders, so that in principle there is every reason for allowing a discretion for the judge at trial to impose an appropriate sentence not exceeding the statutory maximum” and that mandatory sentencing “would lead to results that would be plainly unreasonable and unjust”.
Cost to the Australian Taxpayer
The average cost of keeping someone in prison is around $150 per day with the yearly cost amounting to around $60,000. Putting greater numbers of people into prison is even vastly expensive. Nationally, prisoner populations are increasing significantly. In places with mandatory sentencing, the increase is even greater, as shown in this graph of the Northern Territory. As you can see, with the introduction of the three strike law in Darwin’s metropolitan area, daily prison statistics jumped by 18% over a 3 year period. Not only does this figure continue to rise, but due to the extended time periods on which these sentences are based, causes a compounding effect on the prison system. This provides a window into what the likely outcome would be here in Queensland, with prisoner statistics already on a sharp incline after the Newman governments newest set of statistics, as shown here on graph 3.
This adds up to larger amounts of pubic money going into institutions which, in the end, do not enhance the general social welfare but rather take money away from it. The money could be much better used in rehabilitation centers which, as well as deterring offenders, suitably educates them to be productive members of the workforce. Such an approach has been undertaken with the South Australian Governments “No One Left Behind initiative”
Conclusion
Queensland Mandatory Sentencing
Good Morning Class, today I will be speaking on a issue that, due to recent changes in legislation has sparked both support and outrage within the greater Queensland community. The issue of course, being the notion of mandatory sentencing. In recent years, Queensland and other States, including New South Wales and Victoria, have introduced mandatory sentencing laws for certain types of offences. The Queensland Government is now proposing to adopt further mandatory sentencing laws, as a part of a range of measures to deal with alcohol and other related violence. During this presentation I will be addressing you firstly on the notion of mandatory sentencing, before delving …show more content…
into greater detail into three of the main ethical and moral concerns that shadow this seemingly simple issue.
What is Mandatory sentencing?
Mandatory sentencing laws are generally considered to be laws that specify a minimum penalty or a fixed penalty that a judge must enforce in relation to a particular offence or type of offender (e.g.
a repeat offender). Usually, criminal laws in Australia set a maximum penalty for a particular crime, however a minimum penalty is generally not established. Judges therefore maintain discretion when deciding outcomes on a case by case basis. This decision is made by carefully studying the relevant laws which serve to outline the purposes of sentencing, the types of penalties available, and the range of factors to be taken into account including mitigating and aggravating factors when determining a suitable sentence.
Mandatory sentencing laws are not a completely new concept in Queensland or Australian criminal law. The abolition of the death penalty during the twentieth century resulted in almost all States and Territories adopting a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for murder. Although, since 1982 certain states such as New South Wales have turned to a more relaxed approach, mandatory life imprisonment remains the penalty for murder in Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory. (Austilli, …show more content…
2008)
Mandatory sentencing is a direct contradiction to the Separation of Powers Doctrine.
The largest issue that surrounds mandatory sentencing is that it raises serious concerns about the operation of the separation of powers, specifically between the executive and the judiciary branches of government. As you are probably all aware, Australia’s political system is founded on a clear separation of powers whereby the power of government is balanced between the legislature and executive that establish laws, and the judiciary who interprets these laws. The implementation of mandatory sentencing means that the terms of sentencing, a key aspect of ‘interpreting laws’, are determined by the executive and are not reviewable by the courts.
The significance of the separation of powers doctrine should not be lost. The document is designed to limit the power of the government to impose its will on the public. It is intended to protect the public from the dictatorship and oppression by the government, to preserve and protect the freedom of all individuals from the abuse of government power. Mandatory sentencing compromises the well-thought-out foundations of our democracy, to address popular demand.
Mandatory sentencing fails to consider an offender’s circumstances Mandatory sentencing uses a “one size fits all” methodology which doesn’t properly consider the circumstances of the offender.
The prevailing thought on why Mandatory sentences are in public favour is because they appeal on the basis that they provide consistency in sentencing, by removing the discretion of the judiciary to decide on the most appropriate sentence. However multiple cases across Australia, such as Crown V Manse 2004 - in which a homeless man was sentenced to 12 months prison after stealing a towel off a clothes line under Victoria’s three strike law – provide unequivocal evidence that a one size fits all approach serves to negatively impact the offender, on the basis of the punishment not fitting the
crime.
Giving judges and magistrates discretion maximises the chances of finding a sentence which will address the causes of the offending and reduce the chance of reoffending. Evidence shows that therapeutic approaches to sentencing, such as community and treatment-based orders, can substantially reduce reoffending rates compared with prison as shown on this graph. This notion was backed by several high ranking judicial officials with Chief Justice Gibbsvii slamming new mandatory sentencing laws in Queensland “even in the case of a most serious crime ...there may exist wide differences in the degree of culpability of particular offenders, so that in principle there is every reason for allowing a discretion for the judge at trial to impose an appropriate sentence not exceeding the statutory maximum” and that mandatory sentencing “would lead to results that would be plainly unreasonable and unjust”.
Cost to the Australian Taxpayer
The average cost of keeping someone in prison is around $150 per day with the yearly cost amounting to around $60,000. Putting greater numbers of people into prison is even vastly expensive. Nationally, prisoner populations are increasing significantly. In places with mandatory sentencing, the increase is even greater, as shown in this graph of the Northern Territory. As you can see, with the introduction of the three strike law in Darwin’s metropolitan area, daily prison statistics jumped by 18% over a 3 year period. Not only does this figure continue to rise, but due to the extended time periods on which these sentences are based, causes a compounding effect on the prison system. This provides a window into what the likely outcome would be here in Queensland, with prisoner statistics already on a sharp incline after the Newman governments newest set of statistics, as shown here on graph 3.
This adds up to larger amounts of pubic money going into institutions which, in the end, do not enhance the general social welfare but rather take money away from it. The money could be much better used in rehabilitation centers which, as well as deterring offenders, suitably educates them to be productive members of the workforce. Such an approach has been undertaken with the South Australian Governments “No One Left Behind initiative”
Conclusion