Measuring jurors’ views on sentencing: Results from the second Australian jury sentencing study

Abstract

This paper presents the results of the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study which aimed to measure jurors’ views on sentencing. The study asked jurors who had returned a guilty verdict to propose a sentence for the offender, to comment on the sentence given by the judge in their case and to give their opinions on general sentencing levels for different offence types. A total of 987 jurors from 124 criminal trials in the County Court of Victoria participated in this mixed-method and multi-phased study in 2013–2015. The results are based on juror responses to the Stage One and Stage Two surveys and show that the views of judges and jurors are much more closely aligned than mass public opinion surveys would suggest.

Judicial sentencing considerations in cases of violent offenders versus sexual offenders

“…In other words, judges appear to place little weight on mitigating factors when sentencing sexual offenders. This is consistent with public opinion research which has found that sexual offences are considered serious types of crime that are deserving of harsher punishment (Hudson, 2012;Warner et al, 2017). Thus, the results of this study suggest that judicial sentencing decisions are broadly in line with public 672 N. .…”

“…The presence of such aggravating factors in cases involving Judicial Sentencing Considerations violent offences is likely to increase the sentence that is imposed on the offender, irrespective of mitigating factors and victimrelated factors. This finding is in accordance with public opinion research on the salience of aggravating factors in sentencing considerations (Warner et al, 2017) and suggests that the judicial sentencing decisions in these specific cases are broadly in line with public opinion. Policymakers and the judiciary can thus use this information to guide sentencing laws and practices to ensure consistency and fairness across Australian states (Bagaric & Edney, 2015).…”

“…This is not in line with public opinion. Specifically, the Victorian jurors in the study conducted by Warner et al (2017) placed little weight on mitigating factors in determining sentencing outcomes, whilst 79% of a representative national sample of Australians surveyed by Mackenzie et al (2012) agreed that sentences handed down by Australian courts for violent crimes were too lenient. Policymakers, the judiciary, sentencing advisory councils and legal scholars should improve their efforts to educate the public about how mitigating factors are taken into consideration in actual sentencing decisions in order to boost public confidence in sentencing practices and decisions (Mackenzie et al, 2012).…”

“…The recent findings of a Victorian jury survey reveal that jurors from 124 criminal trials indeed ranked aggravating factors as relatively more important than mitigating factors with regard to determining sentence length across a mixed sample of criminal cases (Warner, Davis, Spiranovic, Cockburn, & Freiberg, 2017). Specifically, the jurors ranked four offence-related aggravating factors (i.e.…”

“…This finding is consistent with previous Australian research on sexual offenders (Deering & Mellor, 2009), yet it differs from the group of violent offenders. Recall that seven violent offenders in the current study did not receive a term of imprisonment; the fact that all sexual offenders in the current study were sentenced to imprisonment could be due to the widespread perception of the seriousness of sexual crimes, particularly those involving child victims, and the subsequent desire to punish those offenders who commit sexual crimes irrespective of mitigating factors (Hudson, 2012;Warner et al, 2017).…”