Mandatory Sentences in South Africa: Lessons for Australia?

Terblanche, Stephan; Mackenzie, Geraldine

doi:10.1375/acri.41.3.402

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar trends have been evidenced in South Africa. Terblanche and Mackenzie (2008) reviewed the literature on the impact of the introduction of MMS in South Africa and concluded that MMS resulted in overcrowding of prisons and bad sentencing practices. The authors stated the MMS in South Africa focused on long prison sentences rather than explicit sentencing practices, increased the acceptable length of imprisonment, and resulted in disproportional prison sentences to offences committed.…”

Section: They Do Not Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Justice, to some, would require that the punishment fit the crime. As evidenced above, there is inconsistent application of MMS and other "tough on crime" policies (Hartley, 2008); mandatory sentences have become disproportional to the crime committed (e.g., Terblanche & Mackenzie, 2008), and are often discriminatory (see section "The Human Cost"). Waller (2008) argued that "tough on crime" policies result in a loss of justice because the focus is on offenders, for example, police end up focusing on catching more criminals and judges aim for more decisions, instead of on helping the victims of the crimes.…”

Section: They Do Not Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

“Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada.

Cook

Roesch

2012

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The direction of recent and proposed justice policy in Canada is characterised by more criminal offences and longer periods of incarceration. This policy is based on the rationale that crime in Canada is increasing and the perception that Canadians are not safe. This article reviews whether there is empirical support for the rationale of this policy and the related assumption that this policy will reduce crime and better protect the public. From the existing literature, it seems clear that (1) crime is not on the increase in Canada, (2) it is unlikely that the reforms will lower crime rates, and (3) there is a large financial and human cost of the recent and proposed criminal justice policies. We conclude that "tough on crime" policies are not supported by the scientific literature (e.g., Smith, Goggin & Gendreau, 2002; Stalhlskopf, Males, & Macallier, 2010). Psychology would argue for evidenced-based justice policy; specifically, that early intervention, prevention, and rehabilitation are more beneficial in reducing crime in the long-term and more cost-effective (e.g., Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001; CPPRG, 2010). Policy implications from the field of psychology are discussed.

show abstract

Section: They Do Not Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: They Do Not Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada.

Cook

Roesch

2012

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Possessing these features, California’s three-strikes law was described as ‘one of the most regressive three-strikes laws in the country’ (Giacopuzzi, 2009), as ‘the harshest (non-capital) sentencing law in the United States’ (Stanford Three Strikes Project, 2013), and as ‘the toughest law in America’ (Vitiello, 2004: 1026). In 2006, Proposition 66 was introduced to reduce the number of people going to prison under three-strikes by removing non-violent property and drug offences from the list of eligible offences, but this initiative was defeated, 53% to 47% (Bazelon, 2010).…”

Section: Three-strikes In the Usamentioning

confidence: 99%

Habitual criminal legislation in New Zealand: Three years of three-strikes

Oleson

2014

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Habitual felon legislation is not new, but during the last 20 years it has become a powerful instrument of penal populism. Since passage of California's landmark 1994 three-strikes initiative, more than 100,000 offenders have been incarcerated in that state, contributing to prison crowding so serious that, in 2011, in Brown v. Plata, the United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population by 46,000 persons. While the Californian three-strikes law is unusually draconian, habitual offender legislation also has been enacted in Australia and, more recently, in New Zealand. While little official data are available about New Zealand’s three-strikes law, preliminary analysis indicates that minority groups are overrepresented in the three-strikes population, and that three-strikes demographics resemble those of the New Zealand general prison population.

show abstract

Section: Mandatory Life Sentencing In the English Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These policies are often implemented by governments with reference to the importance of achieving consistency in sentencing and ensuring that the sentencing principles of general deterrence, punishment and community protection are upheld (Ashworth, 2009; Crutcher, 20002001; Hoel and Gelb, 2008; Roberts, 2003; Roche, 1999; Sheehy, 2001a; Terblanche and Mackenzie, 2008; Warner, 2007). In explaining the deterrence justification for mandatory sentencing policies, Hoel and Gelb (2008: 13, emphasis in original) outline that: Mandatory sentencing is said to provide an extra level of deterrence by ensuring that the cost of illegal conduct outweighs the benefits, in terms of both the severity of the sanction and the certainty that the sanction will be imposed consistently where there is a successful prosecution.…”

Section: Mandatory Life Sentencing In the English Courtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The mandatory life sentence for murder: An argument for judicial discretion in England

Fitz‐Gibbon

2012

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1965, alongside the abolition of capital punishment, a mandatory life sentence for murder was implemented in England and Wales. The mandatory life sentence served as a signal to the public that the criminal justice system would still implement the most severe sanction of life imprisonment in cases of murder. Nearly 50 years later, this article examines whether the imposition of a mandatory life sentence for murder is still in the best interests of justice or whether English homicide law would be better served by a discretionary sentencing system. In doing so, the article considers debates surrounding the political and public need for a mandatory life sentence for murder by drawing upon interviews conducted with 29 members of the English criminal justice system. This research concludes that a discretionary sentencing framework is required to adequately respond to the many contexts within which the crime of murder is committed. KeywordsJudicial discretion, mandatory life sentence, murder, sentencingIn 1965, alongside the abolition of capital punishment, mandatory life sentencing for murder was implemented into the English criminal justice system. Described by Roberts (2008: 23) as the 'most visible example' of penal populism, the mandatory life sentence for murder was imposed as a symbolic contract with the public that murders would continue to be taken seriously by the justice system and would routinely receive the most serious form of punishment available. Its implementation was also based upon the belief that imposing a sentence less than life would decrease public confidence in the operation of the criminal justice system (Mitchell and Roberts,

show abstract

Mandatory Sentences in South Africa: Lessons for Australia?

Cited by 9 publications

References 17 publications

“Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada.

“Tough on crime” reforms: What psychology has to say about the recent and proposed justice policy in Canada.

Habitual criminal legislation in New Zealand: Three years of three-strikes

The mandatory life sentence for murder: An argument for judicial discretion in England

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About