eCite Digital Repository

Mandatory sentencing? Use [with] discretion


Warner, K and Spiranovic, C and Freiberg, A and Davis, J, Mandatory sentencing? Use [with] discretion, Alternative Law Journal, 43, (4) pp. 289-294. ISSN 1037-969X (2018) [Refereed Article]

Open XML Document (Accepted version)

Copyright Statement

Copyright 2018 The Author(s)

DOI: doi:10.1177/1037969X18793967


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 divorced from the context of a specific case are an inadequate and misleading measure of public opinion.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Keywords:mandatory sentencing, discretion, views of jurors
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:Spiranovic, C (Dr Caroline Spiranovic)
ID Code:130810
Year Published:2018
Funding Support:Australian Research Council (DP130101054)
Web of Science® Times Cited:1
Deposited By:Law
Deposited On:2019-02-13
Last Modified:2019-04-15
Downloads:21 View Download Statistics

Repository Staff Only: item control page