By Paul McGorrery

In sentencing an offender, courts take many factors into account, such as the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s prior record, their age, whether they pleaded guilty and many others. In Australia, courts do this through an approach known as instinctive synthesis, meaning they consider all the factors that can justify a sentence being more or less severe and then arrive at a final outcome. One of the factors that courts may take into account is whether the offender has already been punished in some fashion outside the criminal justice process. Known as extra-curial punishment3 (or extra judicial or natural5 punishment) this can take various forms such as visa cancellation,6 loss of chosen career, injury to the offender8 and hardship to the offender’s family. This report is concerned with just one form of extra-curial punishment: adverse media coverage, in particular, of people. The media and the courts have an important and symbiotic relationship, but sometimes their interests can diverge. The media have an interest in reporting on criminal justice matters because they are often stories of considerable interest to their audiences. In reporting on those stories, the media often concentrate their attentions ‘on the exceptional and unusual among serious crimes’, which can lead to ‘intense and often emotive media reporting’ about sentencing. This can run the risk of undermining, rather than promoting, confidence in the justice system.

Courts in turn have an interest in having their decisions reported. Confidence in the judicial arm of the criminal justice system relies on a combination of community awareness about what courts do, the transparency of their work, and the apparent fairness of their decisions, which can only be scrutinised if there is transparency and community awareness. Moreover, the sentencing purpose of general deterrence – whereby the sentencing of one offender is thought to deter other people from engaging in similar behaviour – is realistically only achievable (if at all) if the media and/or government operate as the conduit between the courts and the community. While some courts have taken the very laudable step of making most of their sentencing remarks publicly available, many people do not even have time to read media summaries, let alone original source material like sentencing remarks, especially in the social media age. So the community realistically only becomes aware of sentencing decisions through the media. The difficulty is balancing the need for fair coverage (the courts’ priority) with the need for interesting coverage (the media’s priority). Justice Harper has described the relationship as like a ‘Greek tragedy’ because ‘[e]ach is forced by its circumstances to face the other off, with neither having the flexibility necessary to reach a satisfactory working compromise’.

Malbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council (VIC), 2022. 24p.

MAY CONTAIN MARKUP

Regina Janes

FROM THE PREFACE: Why should anyone, especially sophisticated people like you and me, regard so widespread a cultural practice as beheadings as repellent? About 160,000 years ago, homo sapiens idaltu separated heads from bodies.' Homo sapiens sapiens still does. Disagreeable, fascinating, horrific, laughable, headless bodies and bodiless heads are all around us. Tim Burton, whose Sleepy Hollow (1999) sent heads flying, claims severed heads create unease that one cannot put one's finger on.? Garrison Keillor begins the millennium with a snowboarding beheading in Lake Wobegon where "we don't have many beheadings."3 Snoopy horrifies himself by accidentally beheading a snowman. Decapitating murderers horrify the rest of us, populating our prisons, our films, and our fictions. Horror or comedy: decapitation owes its current characteristic shudder to the placement of violence within the modern ideology of the body. Decapitation, like other mutilations, makes visible a violence that the west has been campaigning to make invisible since the seventeenth century, when our body-based ideology begins to emerge.

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY PRESS. New York and London. 2005. 266p.

Edited by Giulia Gaimari and Catherine Keen

Ethics, Politics and Justice in Dante presents new research by international scholars on the themes of ethics, politics and justice in the works of Dante Alighieri, including chapters on Dante’s modern ‘afterlife’.

Together the chapters explore how Dante’s writings engage with the contemporary culture of medieval Florence and Italy, and how and why his political and moral thought still speaks compellingly to modern readers. The collection’s contributors range across different disciplines and scholarly traditions – history, philology, classical reception, philosophy, theology – to scrutinise Dante’s Divine Comedy and his other works in Italian and Latin, offering a multi-faceted approach to the evolution of Dante’s political, ethical and legal thought throughout his writing career.

Certain chapters focus on his early philosophical Convivio and on the accomplished Latin Eclogues of his final years, while others tackle knotty themes relating to judgement, justice, rhetoric and literary ethics in his Divine Comedy, from hell to paradise. The closing chapters discuss different modalities of the public reception and use of Dante’s work in both Italy and Britain, bringing the volume’s emphasis on morality, political philosophy, and social justice into the modern age of the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries.

London: UCL Press, 2019. 192p.