Sentencing in the Victorian Supreme Court
should be broadcast so the public can have "all the facts" when it comes to
formulating views about appropriate sentences, according to the Law Institute
of Victoria (LIV).
LIV president Caroline Counsel made the
comments in the wake of today's (27 July) launch of an online opinion poll
which the Victorian Government hopes will allow the public to participate in
the debate about sentencing reform.
"We believe that the public gets it right
when they have all the facts," said Counsel. "Online surveys are not the way
for governments to develop sentencing policy."
Victorian Attorney-General Robert Clark
said the survey, which will run for four weeks, will allow all Victorians to
give their views on sentencing reform.
"We're asking Victorians to consider a
range of criminal case studies and hand down the sentences they think are
appropriate in each case," Clark said.
"This will help inform the Government about
community views on sentencing and help shape decisions about future sentencing
levels and other sentencing reforms in Victoria."
The survey includes almost 20 case studies
featuring aspects of real crimes heard in Victorian courts.
Counsel said the survey was "too blunt" to
provide all the nuances of individual factors taken into account by judges and
magistrates when imposing sentences.
"It is important that the community gets as
much information about sentencing as possible, but this cannot be done through
an online survey," Counsel said.
She also said studies consistently showed
that when the public is given the same information as judges, they tend to give
similar or lower sentences than judges. Most recently, she said, the Tasmanian
Jury Sentencing Study confirmed that jurors with firsthand experience consider
that sentences are appropriate, and that judges are in touch with public
opinion.
"The Government's online survey does not
take into account important factors such as whether the accused is suffering
from a mental impairment, as well as all the individual circumstances of a
case," Counsel said.
She said the LIV believed that a wide range
of sentencing options, including suspended sentences and home detention for
less serious offences, should be retained. The LIV is also against any form of
mandatory sentencing.
"We believe that and judges and
magistrates, who have taken all the individual factors into account, must have
discretion in determining the appropriate sentence," she said.
