Full text not available from this repository.

Abstract

This article reports the findings of the first study in Australia to compare theresponses of judges and jurors in 122 real cases who were asked to identifythe appropriate relevance and weight that should be given to some of the mostcommonly listed aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing. The researchreveals that, while jurors and judges in Victoria are alike in giving more weight toaggravating factors than mitigating factors and in supporting an individualisedapproach to sentencing, jurors give less weight than judges to some mitigatingfactors, including good character, being a first offender, youth, old age andphysical illness. Jurors also adopted broader interpretations of aggravatingfactors like breach of trust and the relevance of prior convictions. They alsopreferred a different rationale for discounting sentences due to family hardship.

Item Type:	Article
Authors/Creators:	Warner, K and Davis, J and Freiberg, A and Spriranovic, C and Cockburn, H
Keywords:	aggravating, mitigation, sentencing
Journal or Publication Title:	Australian Law Journal
Publisher:	Lawbook Co.
ISSN:	0004-9611
Copyright Information:	Copyright 2018 Australian Law Journal
Related URLs:	UTAS Profile: Warner, K Google Scholar: Spriranovic, C UTAS Profile: Spriranovic, C Google Scholar: Cockburn, H UTAS Profile: Cockburn, H
Item Statistics:	View statistics for this item

Actions (login required)

Item Control Page