eCite Digital Repository

Aggravating or mitigating? Comparing judges’ and jurors’ views on four ambiguous sentencing factors

Citation

Warner, K and Spiranovic, C and Freiberg, A and Davis, J and Bartels, L, Aggravating or mitigating? Comparing judges' and jurors' views on four ambiguous sentencing factors, Journal of Judicial Administration, 28, (1) pp. 51-66. ISSN 1036-7918 (2018) [Refereed Article]

Copyright Statement

Copyright 2018 Thomson Reuters

Official URL: https://www.westlaw.com.au/maf/wlau/app/document?d...

Abstract

Mental disorder, intellectual disability, intoxication and drug addiction are factors that are often raised in sentencing hearings, but the effect that these four conditions can have on an offender’s sentence is rarely studied. This article fills two gaps in our understanding of the relevance of these ambiguous sentencing factors: first, by analysing how judges in the County Court of Victoria responded to these factors in 122 sentencing cases relating to 140 sentenced offenders; and second, by comparing the views of the judges with those of 426 jurors who had tried those cases and who participated in the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study. It concludes that lay opinion on the relevance of these factors does not always align with judicial practice and discusses the implications of these findings.

Item Details

Item Type:Refereed Article
Keywords:sentencing factors, aggravating, mitigating
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:130809
Year Published:2018
Funding Support:Australian Research Council (DP130101054)
Web of Science® Times Cited:3
Deposited By:Law
Deposited On:2019-02-13
Last Modified:2019-04-15
Downloads:0

Repository Staff Only: item control page