Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Analysis

Introduction

The epidemic of high profile ‘one punch’ attacks throughout Australia in recent years has raised concern in many state governments on how minimise alcohol related assault. The societal and legal issue of alcohol fuelled violence and ‘one punch’ assaults has led to legislative change in several state jurisdictions with much of the Australian public divided on the use mandatory minimum sentencing. Advocates of mandatory minimum sentencing would argue that it helps ensures that sentences reflect community standards and are not unduly lenient. In other words, to ensure that the punishment matches the crime. This is important for maintaining confidence in the justice system. Elected representatives are more sensitive to community concerns

The “aim is utilitarian, that is, to prevent future crime by rehabilitating offenders or protecting the community, and thus, it takes a forward orientation to punishment.” (Daly, 2011, p.7). Deterrence is a theory developed by proponents who believe that this method dissuades criminal offenders from committing offences through fear of penalty or retribution. Punishment is a Theory of punishment which can be divided into two general viewpoints: utilitarian and retributive. The utilitarian theory punishes offenders to discourage them from committing offences while the retributive theory punishes offenders because they deserve to be punished. Punishments can range in severity from penalties (fines) to Imprisonment and in some places death. Rehabilitation is another utilitarian justification for punishment, the aim of rehabilitation is to avoid future crime by giving offenders the ability to rebuild there lives within the boundaries of the law. Rehabilitation methods for criminal offenders include treatment for conditions such as mental illness, addictions and violent behaviour. Protection is the theory that punishment should protect society from offenders and criminal activity for example community service protects the community from vandals and low risk offenders by taking away their time while capital

Parliament, the Government and advocates of mandatory sentencing would agree that it delivers consistent punishment outcomes compared to a judge’s discretion on what an offenders sentence should be. Therefore, parliament and the government have decided that minimum mandatory sentencing to be imposed in most states as it ‘deters’ crime and results in ‘just’ sentencing compared to a judge’s discretion which they believe to be too