eCite Digital Repository

Mandatory sentencing? Use [with] discretion

Citation

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)
34Kb
  

Copyright Statement

Copyright 2018 The Author(s)

DOI: doi:10.1177/1037969X18793967

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 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