eCite Digital Repository

Aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing: comparing the views of judges and jurors


Warner, K and Davis, J and Freiberg, A and Spriranovic, C and Cockburn, H, Aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing: comparing the views of judges and jurors, Australian Law Journal, 92, (5) pp. 374-391. ISSN 0004-9611 (2018) [Refereed Article]

Copyright Statement

Copyright 2018 Australian Law Journal

Official URL:


This article reports the findings of the first study in Australia to compare the responses of judges and jurors in 122 real cases who were asked to identify the appropriate relevance and weight that should be given to some of the most commonly listed aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The research reveals that, while jurors and judges in Victoria are alike in giving more weight to aggravating factors than mitigating factors and in supporting an individualised approach to sentencing, jurors give less weight than judges to some mitigating factors, including good character, being a first offender, youth, old age and physical illness. Jurors also adopted broader interpretations of aggravating factors like breach of trust and the relevance of prior convictions. They also preferred a different rationale for discounting sentences due to family hardship.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Keywords:aggravating, mitigation, sentencing
Research Division:Human Society
Research Group:Criminology
Research Field:Courts and sentencing
Objective Division:Law, Politics and Community Services
Objective Group:Justice and the law
Objective Field:Legal processes
UTAS Author:Warner, K (Professor Kate Warner)
UTAS Author:Spriranovic, C (Dr Caroline Spiranovic)
UTAS Author:Cockburn, H (Dr Helen Cockburn)
ID Code:124418
Year Published:2018
Web of Science® Times Cited:6
Deposited By:Law
Deposited On:2018-02-21
Last Modified:2020-05-27

Repository Staff Only: item control page