ORCID Profile
0000-0002-4752-4878
Current Organisation
University of South Australia
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 31-08-2018
Abstract: In the light of proposals to give jurors a sentencing role in response to media portrayals of judges as soft on crime and out of touch, this article reports on a study which explored jurors’ thoughts about such a role using survey questions and interviews. Most shied away from such a role.
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Date: 2007
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2009
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2363731
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 11-09-2021
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 22-08-2011
DOI: 10.1093/BJC/AZR066
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 10-11-2019
Abstract: In recent times, parliaments have introduced legislation directing judges to take defined purposes into account when sentencing. At the same time, judges and politicians also acknowledge that sentencing should vindicate the values of the community. This article compares the views on the purposes of sentencing of three major participants in the criminal justice system: legislators who pass sentencing statutes, judges who impose and justify sentences and jurors who represent the community. A total of 987 Australian jurors in the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study (2013–2015) were asked to sentence the offender in their trial and to choose the purpose that best justified the sentence. The judges’ sentencing remarks were coded and the results were compared with the jurors’ surveys. The research shows that, in this jurisdiction, the views of the judges, the jurors and the legislators are not always well aligned. Judges relied on general deterrence much more than jurors and jurors selected incapacitation as the primary purpose in only about a fifth of ‘serious offender’ cases where parliament has provided that community protection must be the principal purpose.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 12-2018
Abstract: When asked about sentencing discretion and mandatory sentences, jurors participating in the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study expressed strong support for sentencing discretion and weak support for mandatory sentences despite a belief by jurors that, in general, sentences are too lenient. This strengthens the argument that polls that pose a general question about mandatory sentences or sentencing severity orced from the context of a specific case are an inadequate and misleading measure of public opinion.
Start Date: 2013
End Date: 2016
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded ActivityStart Date: 2013
End Date: 2015
Funder: Australian Research Council
View Funded Activity