Mandatory Sentencing By Courtney

1. Kevin was drunk. 2. Kevin is homeless and took the towel to use as a blanket 3. Kevin returned the $8 towel

Charged with petty theft, 1 year in prison Due to the Mandatory Sentencing laws of the Northern Territory

Mandatory sentencing: establishes an exact penalty for the commission of a criminal offence Eliminates discretion Does not allow the mitigating circumstances to be considered

Mandatory Sentencing implemented in: The Northern Territory in the Sentencing Act 1995 (NT) Western Australia in the Criminal Code (WA)

The laws in the NT were: Unjust Morally abhorrent Unfairly targeted Aboriginal children In violation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

The laws in NT were abolished in October 2001 as: Indigenous people were heavily over- represented, the length of the minimum sentence was not an adequate deterrent and the effect on prison population was unmanageable The mandatory sentencing laws still exist in WA

Mandatory sentencing laws for assault on public officials ForAgainst Response to public concernineffective Response to the undesirable level of police assaults Do not deter criminals Protect public officialsUsed by politicians as a ‘ploy for votes’

Mandatory Sentencing laws for assaults on public officials in WA Passed in September 2009 under the Criminal Code (WA) Proposed following public outrage of a constable left paralysed WA Government has ‘not applied principles of law in the proper sense’ and is ‘enacting laws that it thinks will appeal to the general population’ – Malcolm McCusker

Similar laws are being proposed and debated over for QLD and TAS As ‘assaults on police are going virtually unpunished’

Conclusion In theory, mandatory sentencing guarantees consistency The punishment must fit the crime, circumstances must be considered mandatory sentencing in the past has not proven to be an effective or efficient means of achieving justice for the individual and society and its effectiveness in current criminal justice system is speculative.