The Law Institute of Victoria (LIV) has
pleaded with the State Government to rethink its commitment to baseline
sentencing.
Acting LIV president Michael Holcroft
called the proposal for baseline sentencing a "confusing and punitive scheme"
which will not be effective in deterring crime.
"While studies have shown that the threat
of imprisonment may generate a small deterrent effect, increasing the severity
of sentences or the length of sentences does not produce any more deterrence,"
he said.
In April 2011 the Victorian Government
asked the Sentencing Advisory Council (SAC) to advise on the introduction of
"baseline" sentences, or non-parole imprisonment periods, for serious and
significant offences, including murder, manslaughter, intentionally causing
serious injury, armed robbery and serious sexual offences, arson, recklessly
causing serious injury, aggravated burglary and major drug trafficking.
The SAC is no longer accepting submissions
on the proposal and the Government is awaiting its recommendation.
In its submission on the proposals, the LIV
opposed the introduction of baseline sentences, despite the fact similar
schemes already exist in New South Wales, the Northern Territory and South Australia.
"We believe that the schemes unduly limit
judicial discretion, over-complicate the sentencing process and fail to deter
crime," Holcroft said.
"If introduced, baseline sentencing will
require judges to undergo complicated mental gymnastics to analyse offences to
determine whether they fall within a low, mid or high range of seriousness.
Holcroft said he also believes baseline
sentencing will "disappoint" victims of crime and unduly raise their
expectations.
The LIV pointed out what it believes to be
numerous other flaws with the proposal, including that it results in
overcharging by police to encourage successful plea negotiations; greater
difficulty in defendants securing bail for a wider range of offences; pressure
on defendants to plead guilty; more cases being heard in superior courts which
causes delays and additional costs; and longer sentences leading to increased
prison and corrections costs.
