Pros And Cons Of Mandatory Sentencing

Mandatory Sentence

Mandatory sentencing refers to the practice of parliament setting a fixed penalty for the commission of a criminal offence. Mandatory sentencing was mainly introduced in Australia to: prevent crime, to incapacitate the offenders, to deter offenders so they don’t offend again, to create a stronger retribution and to eliminate inconsistency. There is a firm belief that the imposition of Mandatory sentencing for an offence will have a deterrent effect on the individual and will send a forcible message to the offenders. Those in favour argue that it will bring consistency in sentencing and conciliate public concern about crime and punishment.

The recent publicity around Mandatory sentencing makes us think that it is a new idea

The arguments against mandatory sentencing are that its not eliminating disparities or discretion and those they have shifted that discretion from the judges to the prosecutors. People contend that mandatory sentencing does not reduce crime. Law professor Michael Tonry at the university of Minnesota concluded

Finally it is not cost efficient or effective. The certainty of arrest, prosecution, conviction, imprisonment and punishment has a far greater deterrent effect than the brutality of punishment.

On the other hand, a number of parities also support mandatory sentencing terms of imprisonment. These parties believe that mandatory minimum sentencing will eliminate dishonesty that characterized sentencing in the 20th century. The whole process demonstrated dishonesty and sarcasm, which crumbles the professional and public respect necessary for the criminal Justice system to be deemed a morally defensive exercise of governmental