By Arie Freiberg

The relationship between alcohol and other drugs (AOD), the criminal law, and sentencing has a long and tortuous history in Victoria. It is a saga of changing theories regarding the nature of substance use and addiction, the link between substance use and crime1 and oscillating responses to AOD-related crime ranging from ‘law and order’ to harm minimisation, from more severe penalties to decriminalisation. Over 170 years or so, Victoria’s sentencing responses have evolved from the traditional sanctions of fines, imprisonment, common law bonds and probation to a complex mix of pre-sentence interventions, diversion programs, a range of intermediate sanctions, various forms of suspended sentences and problem-oriented court models such as the drug and alcohol court. Although the criminal law forms the foundation of the legal framework for AOD offending, sentencing law and practice play an important part in that structure. They provide the context for medical and other interventions aimed at addressing the underlying causes of drug related offending.2 This paper argues that although there have been many innovations in sentencing, they have generally had only a marginal effect on AODrelated crime. While there exists a substantial literature on the sentencing of AOD-related offences (Sentencing Advisory Council 2015), and on AOD treatment policy (Ritter and Berends 2016), less attention has been paid to the structure, content and effectiveness of the various sanctions employed over the years. In contrast, this paper reflects on over 170 years of AOD sentencing reform, arguing that many of the interventions have been less than successful due to their poor construction, inadequate resourcing, lack of continuity and clarity of purpose, unrealistic and inflexible conditions, geographic disparity, and unresponsiveness to different groups of offenders. This paper concludes that sentencing alone can never provide the answer to AOD-related crime and that far more fundamental reform to the regulation of AOD-related offending is required. These conclusions reflect the current impasse between the clear and undeniable failure of the war on drugs and the continued pursuit of the same law and order policies that, asthis paper shows, have failed to provide lasting solutions  

Collingwood 3066, Victoria : The Victorian Alcohol and Drug Association (VAADA) i , 2023. 34p.

By J. Gormley

This new report published by the Sentencing Council is part of a biennial series reviewing the existing research into the effectiveness of sentencing commissioned to enable the Council to consider the most up-to-date evidence when developing and revising guidelines. This report updates the report published by the Sentencing Council in 2022 and reviews what ‘effectiveness’ might mean from the perspective of four key groups: offenders (specifically with regard to deterrence); the public; victims; and sentencers (judges and magistrates).

By Michelle D. Bonner

The book discusses the rise of punitive populism in Latin America and the role of the media in shaping public opinion. It explores the interpretation of crime statistics, the media’s influence on emotions and public opinion, and the comparison of media systems inArgentina and Chile. The document also examines the preference of journalists for tough-on-crime sources and the rise of punitive voices from within the state and civil society. The conclusion highlights the homogenization of public opinion in neoliberal media systems. [Introduction, 1. Interpreting statistics on crime, insecurity, and police violence, 2. The mass media’s role in emotions and public opinion,3. Comparing media systems: Argentina and Chile, 4. Journalists’preference for tough-on-crime sources, 5. The rise of punitive voices from within the state, 6. The rise ofpunitive voices from civil society, conclusion

University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019 276 pages

By Jonathan Gu

AIM To estimate the association between judge-alone trials and the probability of acquittal, trial length, and sentence severity. METHOD We compared 5,064 jury and 805 judge-alone criminal trials finalised in the NSW District Court and Supreme Court between January 2011 and December 2019, excluding cases where the defendant entered a guilty plea to their principal offence or had a special verdict of “not guilty by reason of mental illness” (under s. 25 of the Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW)). Entropy balancing was used to match judge-alone cases with jury cases on available covariates. We then estimated the association between trial type (judge-alone vs jury) and four criminal justice outcomes, adjusting for relevant observable factors. The analysis was repeated for two subsets of offences: violent offences and offences with a higher likelihood of having prejudicial elements or complex evidence (prejudicial and complex offences). We also interviewed 12 legal practitioners, including District and Supreme Court judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers, to identify factors motivating judge-alone applications that may be correlated with the outcomes of interest. RESULTS We estimated that compared to jury trials, judge-alone trials are associated on average with a statistically significant nine percentage point increase in the probability of acquittal and a shorter prison sentence by 7.6 months. Within prejudicial and complex offences, we found that judge-alone trials were associated with a statistically significant decrease in average trial days. Judge-alone trials were also associated with a statistically significant decrease in prison sentence length for the violent offences subgroup. Interviewees suggested that increased use of written submissions may influence both shorter trial length in judgealone matters and reduced prison sentences (i.e., via discounts from efficiencies resulting from pre-trial cooperation or time saved by submitting tendered evidence). Interviewees stated that judge-alone applications in NSW are mostly made in cases with prejudicial elements (e.g., evidence that cannot be separated from prior proven offending) or complex evidence (e.g., cases with substantial scientific or financial evidence). CONCLUSION Judge-alone trials are associated with an increased probability of acquittal, shorter trials, and a shorter prison sentence. However, we cannot determine whether these differences are driven by confounding factors (such as strength of the prosecution’s case) and/or causal factors.

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2024. 49p.

By Arthur L. Rizer

Over the past 20 years, conservatives have often been at the forefront of criminal justice reform efforts, including to reduce mandatory minimum sentencing, lengthy prison terms, and excessive criminal fines and fees and to improve conditions in prisons and jails. Rejecting the Nixonian “law and order” impulse, criminal justice reform has increasingly become incorporated into the conservative political self-identity. But this has been an elite-driven phenomenon, and it is open to question whether the roots of that political identity are deep enough to withstand the rising salience of crime as a political issue. This review traces how criminal justice reform came to be incorporated into the conservative political identity, raises questions concerning its staying power in the face of rising crime and increasingly strident progressive demands, and proposes some principles that might ground a more lasting conservative commitment to a just, proportionate system of criminal justice.

Annual Review of Criminology, v. 6. 2023, 18pg

By Sam J. Merchant

Many observers claim that judges are imposing disproportionately lenient sentences on January 6, 2021, “Capitol Breach” offenders. Some have even suggested a racial or political motivation for lighter sentences. Comparative data on these sentences and offenders, presented here for the first time, refute this narrative. Individuals convicted of felonies related to the Capitol Breach appear to actually receive longer sentences than individuals convicted of the same crimes outside of the Capitol Breach context.

But sentences in Capitol Breach cases may indeed be “lenient” for a deeper, more structural reason—the current Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not adequately account for the severity of the conduct that occurred on January 6, 2021. There is a qualitative difference between federal offenses and the same offenses committed in the context of the “treason spectrum.” English and American legal traditions have historically viewed treason, rebellion, and subversive activities as “the worst crimes of all” because they are crimes against all citizens and threaten the constitutional order. Yet no sentencing enhancement addresses the increased severity of conduct involving offenses that are on the treason spectrum.

Recognizing the increased seriousness of other conduct, Congress and the Sentencing Commission have enacted an array of enhancements to punish, incapacitate, and deter offenders whose conduct involves a dangerous weapon, body armor, or even use of a fake website during an offense. This Article proposes a new sentencing enhancement in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that properly accounts for the relative severity of conduct involving offenses on the treason spectrum. To reaffirm a commitment to democratic values, to deter future subversive conduct, and ensure that the legal system is equipped to respond to the severity of subversive conduct, policymakers and judges should send clear signal that subversive activities are indeed among “the worst crimes of all.”

Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law Research Paper Series. 2024, 41pg

By Kitty Lymperopoulou

 In recent years, there has been considerable policy and academic interest in the existence of ethnic inequalities in the Criminal Justice System. A large body of sentencing research has been dedicated to exploring whether ethnic minority defendants are treated more harshly than similarly situated white defendants. This paper extends this research utilizing Ministry of Justice linked criminal justice datasets and multilevel models to assess the effect of ethnicity and other defendant case and contextual factors on sentencing outcomes in the Crown Court. The analysis shows that legal characteristics such as plea, pre-trial detention, offence type and severity are important factors determining sentencing outcomes although they do not fully explain disparities in these outcomes between ethnic groups. Ethnic disparities in imprisonment persist and, in some cases, become more pronounced after controlling for defendant case and court factors. In contrast, ethnic disparities in sentence length are largely explained by legal factors, and after adjusting for other predictors of sentencing outcomes, observed differences between most (but not all) ethnic minority groups and the white British disappear

 British Journal of Criminology. 2024, 22pg