Search

This article addresses the criticism that instinctive synthesis undermines the rule of law. With reference to Australia, the United States, and England and Wales, the author discusses two competing approaches to sentencing offenders: instinctive synthesis and two-tier sentencing. In particular, he examines how these approaches square against various conceptions of the rule of law. Ultimately, the author rejects the argument that the instinctive synthesis approach is contrary to the rule of law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When asked about sentencing discretion and mandatory sentences, jurors participating in the Victorian Jury Sentencing Study expressed strong support for sentencing discretion and weak support for mandatory sentences despite a belief by jurors that, in general, sentences are too lenient. This strengthens the argument that polls that pose a general question about mandatory sentences or sentencing severity divorced from the context of a specific case are an inadequate and misleading measure of public opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores judicial perception and reasoning in the involuntary detention and restriction of sex offenders in Australia. It discusses significant details of the 1992 case Chu Kheng Lim v. Minister for Immigration Local Government & Ethnic Affairs to describe how the Australian High Court treats involuntary detention in the country. It also examines the implementation of pre-emptive control tactics in the court judgment received by the 2009 European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case M v. Germany.

The article focuses on the judicial sentencing discretion in Australia. Topics discussed include punishments such as incarceration given by the sentencing court, sentencing law reforms in Queensland which includes 12-month mandatory sentence in solitary confinement, and the role of public opinion and populist punitiveness in sentencing law and policy. It mentions sentencing laws in Tasmania which will imprison a second time offender charged with claims of an illegal forestry protest.

The article focuses on the Australian court case Bugmy v. The Queen, which dealt with the impact of 'aboriginality' on criminal sentencing in Australia in 2014. Topics include the impact of childhood deprivation on risk of criminality, the rate of Aboriginal incarceration in Australia in 2014, and sentencing discretion in Australia.

The article informs that the juries of South Australia introduced the Juries (Prejudicial Publicity) Amendment Bill 2014 in order to address the adverse effects and unfairness during a trial resulting from the prejudicial publicity against a criminal accused through the use of internet, mass media or social media. It informs that the Bill if passed will amend the amend the Juries Act 1927, which will empower the Court with an absolute judicial discretion to order a trial by judge for fairness.

The article focuses on the laws made for the regulation of proper judicial discretionary sentencing. Topics discussed include the legislative history on judicial discretion, the laws made for the regulation of the prison sentences, and the laws for the regulation of rehabilitation programs in Victoria.

The article offers information on legal developments in Australia as of December 1, 2013, including the High Court of Australia dismissal of the appeal in Magaming v. The Queen, which dealt with the exercise of judicial power through mandatory sentencing. Information is provided on the use of judicial discretion to attach aggravated offenses to a defendant's charges by prosecutors.

The article focuses on the rule of law in Australia in 2013. Topics include the implementation of law reform in Australia, sentencing reform, and mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Information is provided on discretionary compliance standards for judges, the treatment of refugees in Australia, and the responsibility of attorneys.