Correspondence
| Author | Mary Daunton-Fear |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486586900200113 |
| Published date | 01 March 1969 |
| Date | 01 March 1969 |
Correspondence
SIR, One of the major weaknesses of
the
Australian correctional system is
the
paucity of means of communication be-
tween those
who
sentence offenders. It is
true, of course,
that
some of
the
policy de-
cisions of the higher
courts
are to be found
in the authorised law reports, and
other
decisions relating to sentencing policy are
circulated, in at least one State, amongst
those who subscribe to a particular
scheme. However, there is reason to sup-
pose
that
asubstantial proportion of sen-
tences are imposed by those who exercise
their
duties conscientiously
but
who lack
the
opportunity of drawing fully on col-
lective wisdom. By contrast, the cynic
might suggest
that
the
"enlightened" of-
fender has
wider
knowledge of sentencing
policies,
both
on an intra- and
interstate
basis. He has unique incentive to travel
and often the necessary resources.
What
can be done to improve the situ-
ation? At
the
outset, it should be stressed
that
the
following recommendations
are
not
made
with
a view to stripping the cor-
rectional system of its flexibility or rob-
bing individual sentencers of
their
dis-
cretion. Rather, it is hoped
that
such dis-
cretion will be exercised in the light of
disseminated knowledge of
the
prevailing
practices elsewhere and of
the
chances of
success of the available measures.
It is
trite
to
say
that
the most
urgent
need is for systematic research into
the
effect of different sanctions on different
categories of offenders. Until this
sort
of
information is available,
further
progress
will always be impeded. This is
not
an
area in which Australians can afford to
await the findings of research units in
other
countries. The value of correctional
programmes
must
be assessed in the light
of prevailing social and economic con-
ditions in Australia and in the light of
manpower available for
the
supervision of
offenders. Ideally this type of
work
should
be undertaken
or
initiated by a govern-
mental research
unit
on a regular basis.
However, there are
other
ways
of im-
proving the
present
system. There is an
62
urgent
need for frequent seminars on sen-
tencing, both on a Commonwealth and on
aStatewide basis. These could perhaps be
modelled on those organised by the Uni-
versity of Colorado, which provided an
opportunity for the reading of formal
papers, for group discussion and for the
consideration of hypothetical cases.
The third
way
in which the present
system could be improved is by the
regular publication of notes on sentencing
practices in the different States, and it is
in this respect
that
the Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Criminology could
perform an invaluable service. It is sug-
gested
that
such
notes
could appear in
one of various forms:
1. Correspondents in each State could
take it in
turns
to
write
notes, or an
article, on prevailing sentencing prac-
tice
with
regard to particular offences,
e.g., shoplifting, illegal uses of motor
vehicles, carnal knowledge.
2. Correspondents in each State could
take it in
turns
to write notes or an
article on prevailing practices
with
re-
gard to particular sanctions, e.g., the
use of fines,
the
use of the probation
service, the use of
short
terms of im-
prisonment,
the
use of parole.
3. Correspondents in each State could
take it in
turns
to write notes or an
article on
particular
problem groups of
offenders, e.g., teenagers, psychopathic
offenders, alcoholics.
Whichever scheme is adopted, the
task
will call for worthwhile
but
considerable
effort in collating
the
materials, particu-
larly in States which have no informal
method of circulating copies of judgments
amongst legal practitioners.
It might be argued
that
although the
publication of such material is important,
it is a function which should be fulfilled
by a legal
rather
than
acriminological
journal. However, it is submitted
that
sen-
tencing of its
very
essence is inter-dis-
ciplinary and concerns all criminologists,
either directly or indirectly, even if their
primary concern is crime prevention, treat-
ment
or after-care. Readers are invited to
express
their
views as to
the
need for in-
creased communication between sen-
tencers and the
most
practical method of
realising such an aim.
MARY
DAUNTON-FEAR
Senior Lecturer-in-Law
University of Adelaide.
To continue reading
Request your trial