By Steve Yeong and Elizabeth Moore

A new study by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) has found that Aboriginal people who participate in Circle Sentencing have lower rates of imprisonment and recidivism than Aboriginal people who are sentenced in the traditional way.

Circle Sentencing is an alternative sentencing method for Aboriginal offenders, which is available in 12 NSW Local Courts. Under Circle Sentencing, the magistrate works with Aboriginal elders, victims and the offender’s family to determine an appropriate sentence.

The BOCSAR study examined three issues:

The probability of imprisonment.

The probability of at least one reoffence within 12 months.

The number of days between sentencing and the offender’s first reoffence.

After controlling for a variety of defendant-case characteristics (e.g., prior offending, offence severity, age, gender and socioeconomic status), the study found that, when compared to Aboriginal offenders sentenced in the traditional way, offenders participating in Circle Sentencing:

Are 9.3 percentage points less likely to receive a prison sentence.

Are 3.9 percentage points less likely to reoffend within 12 months.

Take 55 days longer to reoffend if and when they do.

Sydney, AUS: NSW Bureau Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2020. 22p.

By Micaela M. Alvarado

The author of this theses examines the multifaceted factors that are in play during sentencing in the criminal justice system and to fill a gap in the literature regarding sentencing disparities based on race and sex across types of counties, such as rural or urban counties, and whether those patterns have changed over time. The author lists three reasons for the importance of this research: it helps inform recent sentencing reforms aimed at targeting inequalities in the criminal processing system; filling a research gap on county-by-county variation in sentencing disparities by demographic characteristics; and examining longitudinal trends in sentencing constitutes an important step in better understanding influential factors in judicial decision making. The thesis examines trends over time as it addresses two specific research questions: do individuals from urban counties receive harsher sentences than those from rural counties; and does an offender’s race, sex, and county of residence influence the sentencing severity. Results showed that individuals in rural counties received harsher sentences, and revealed evidence of overall increased punitiveness for both urban and rural counties over the last several years. Results also revealed differences in sentencing outcomes based on race/ethnicity and sex between rural and urban counties; specifically, Black males experienced the most severe punishment in both rural and urban counties as well as receiving the most punitive form of punishment over time. Results also demonstrated that rural counties provided more punitive sentences in general, while urban counties have more offenders. The author suggests that urban counties may, as a result, rely on different punishment options due to limited resources. Analyses revealed more lenient sentences for females across rural and urban counties over time.

Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University, 2019. 105p.

By Catherine Heard and Helen Fair

This report presents our research on the use of pre-trial imprisonment in ten contrasting jurisdictions: Kenya, South Africa, Brazil, the United States of America, India, Thailand, England & Wales, Hungary, the Netherlands and Australia. A key objective of the research is to learn from disparities in the use of pre-trial imprisonment across the ten countries and to identify transferable lessons about how to prevent its misuse.  

London: Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research, 2019. 52p.

By Sara Rahman

Aim: To estimate the effect of bail decisions on the likelihood of receiving a prison sentence, failure to appear and offending on bail. Method: A dataset of 42,362 first bail hearings taking place after the ‘show cause’ amendments to the Bail Act (2013) was constructed and linked to final case outcomes and offending data. Quasi-random assignment of bail magistrates with differing propensities to grant bail was used to address problems of selection bias and partial observability. Further analyses were undertaken to determine the proportion and characteristics of defendants who were sensitive to magistrate leniency. Robustness checks were conducted to determine the sensitivity of estimates to different specifications. Results: The marginal effect of additional releases is an increase in the rate of offending from 2.3 per cent to 13.3 per cent, a decrease in the rate of imprisonment from 59.0 to 49.0 per cent and an increase in the rate of failure to appear from 2.1 per cent to 11.1 per cent for those defendants. Thus, remanding ten additional defendants increases the number imprisoned by one, and reduces the number of offending and failing to appear by 1.1 and 0.9 on average. These estimates are causal and net of differences in observed characteristics and selection bias, but applicable only to a subset of defendants whose bail status is sensitive to magistrate leniency. The likelihood of failing to appear and of offending on bail for these defendants does not exceed the general rate among those released on bail. Conclusion: Taken together, the results show that bail refusal has a significant incapacitation effect on crime and failure to appear. These benefits should, however, be considered alongside the considerable cost to the correctional system and the individual arising from increased imprisonment rates. There is limited evidence for the influence of selection bias in regards to imprisonment but not in relation to crime or failure to appear.

Brisbane: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research , 2019. 24p.