Abstract:This paper was presented as a keynote address to the Annual Conference of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology in 2009. It contends that it is of the utmost importance that the community have the benefit of empirical research and analysis undertaken in the field of criminal justice by impartial experts. Its central proposition is that the development of policy and sentencing practices in this important area appears to be influenced more by the perception of populist views, than the scientific … Show more
“…The expectation is that sentencing will be somewhat congruent with public expectations. Consistent with this, there is evidence that the judiciary do integrate their perceptions of public opinion into their considerations at the time of sentencing (Indermaur, 1990; Martin, 2009).…”
Changes to sentencing legislation are often introduced or justified on the basis of satisfying public opinion. If sentencing policy is a reflection of public opinion we should see a concordance between different sentencing policies and public opinion. This paper provides a comparison between Australian States and Territories in terms of two key measures of public attitude concerning sentencing: confidence in sentencing and punitiveness. These results are based on acomprehensive telephone survey ( N = 6005) of Australian adults which utilized a stratified random sample of households from the Electronic White Pages. It was found that there were only minor differences in the key measures of public attitude despite the notable differences between the States and Territories of Australia with respect to sentencing policy. Differences in public attitudes across jurisdictions were small, accounting for less than 2 per cent of variation in confidence in sentencing and punitive attitudes scores. In addition, despite the predicted moderately negative association between confidence in sentencing and punitiveness, neither of these variables was related in any systematic way to jurisdictional differences in imprisonment rates. The major implication of these findings is that the wide differences in sentencing practice and policy between jurisdictions in Australia are not linked to differences in public attitudes, supporting Beckett's (1997) argument that sentencing policy is better understood as a function of political initiative rather than a direct articulation of public attitude.
“…The expectation is that sentencing will be somewhat congruent with public expectations. Consistent with this, there is evidence that the judiciary do integrate their perceptions of public opinion into their considerations at the time of sentencing (Indermaur, 1990; Martin, 2009).…”
Changes to sentencing legislation are often introduced or justified on the basis of satisfying public opinion. If sentencing policy is a reflection of public opinion we should see a concordance between different sentencing policies and public opinion. This paper provides a comparison between Australian States and Territories in terms of two key measures of public attitude concerning sentencing: confidence in sentencing and punitiveness. These results are based on acomprehensive telephone survey ( N = 6005) of Australian adults which utilized a stratified random sample of households from the Electronic White Pages. It was found that there were only minor differences in the key measures of public attitude despite the notable differences between the States and Territories of Australia with respect to sentencing policy. Differences in public attitudes across jurisdictions were small, accounting for less than 2 per cent of variation in confidence in sentencing and punitive attitudes scores. In addition, despite the predicted moderately negative association between confidence in sentencing and punitiveness, neither of these variables was related in any systematic way to jurisdictional differences in imprisonment rates. The major implication of these findings is that the wide differences in sentencing practice and policy between jurisdictions in Australia are not linked to differences in public attitudes, supporting Beckett's (1997) argument that sentencing policy is better understood as a function of political initiative rather than a direct articulation of public attitude.
“…An example was provided ed by Chief Justice of Western Australia referring to a popular belief that most, if not all, sex offenders are vile and depraved sub humans preying on victims randomly chosen from the community at large:Most offenders are not subhuman deviants jumping out from behind the bushes on a darkened suburban street, but a family member, friend or acquaintance of the victim and with whom the victim has enjoyed a perfectly normal relationship prior to the offence. They are the people next door who otherwise appear to live perfectly normal and ordinary lives (Martin, 2010, p. 3).…”
“…Most offenders are not subhuman deviants jumping out from behind the bushes on a darkened suburban street, but a family member, friend or acquaintance of the victim and with whom the victim has enjoyed a perfectly normal relationship prior to the offence. They are the people next door who otherwise appear to live perfectly normal and ordinary lives (Martin, 2010, p. 3).…”
Child marriages, often attributed to culture and gender inequality, are prevalent across Africa. Several countries have moved to criminalise the practice. At the core of the criminalisation debate are the fundamental tensions between statutory (state) law on the one hand, and religious and customary law on the other. The growing momentum towards punishment, targeted almost invariably at male offenders, is meant to address the conflict between cultural practices that lead to child marriage and the protection of children's rights. However, some countries have not criminalised child marriage. Thus, the outlawry of child marriages is not universal on the continent. The agitation towards criminalisation—I describe this as ‘popular punitvism’ ‐ as a panacea, is animated by Western penological justifications, principally, deterrence. However, Western criminological and penological theories may not fully account for a phenomenon in other social and geographical spaces. The paper argues for decolonising and decriminalising child marriages in Africa but not legalising it.
“…41 Now better known as penal populism, it refers to the Anglo-American trend of public support for more punitive responses to criminal offending. 42 This derives from disillusionment with the criminal justice system, embodied in the perception that the rights of criminals have been prioritised over their victims and the public. 43 Penal populism signifies the shift in the influences on criminal justice policy from conventional voices, such as judges and academics, to the media and law and order lobby groups, who more accurately represent public opinion.…”
This article examines the human rights consistency of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill 2012. The Bill proposes a new scheme to detain recidivist sex offenders beyond the expiration of their finite sentences, if they are seen as highly likely to reoffend. Despite obvious human rights concerns, the Attorney-General issued a statement contending the Bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The article analyses the correctness of that statement, with a particular focus on whether the Bill establishes a form of civil committal and is, in substance, different to prison detention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
