The policy and practice of protective sentencing

Henham, Ralph

doi:10.1177/1466802503003001456

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One significant technique of resistance when dealing with protective sentencing measures is the strict application of the principle of proportionality. Although proportionality can be overridden by legislation, the courts have sought to circumscribe the operation of such legislation by limiting its application to exceptional cases only (Freiberg, 2000b;Henham, 2003). When the provisions that allowed longer than proportionate sentences were introduced in Victoria it was not only the legal profession and commentators who thought the principle of proportionality had seen its demise in sentencing in Victoria.…”

Section: Judicial Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The experience with longer than proportionate sentences has been the subject of research in recent years. In the United Kingdom, studies have found that courts have been reluctant to utilize the protective sentence powers under s.80(2)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (UK) (Flood-Page and Mackie, 1998;Henham, 2001Henham, , 2003. There also provisions have been interpreted strictly by the appeal courts, which have used the notion of proportionality to limit any resulting increase in sentence length (Dingwall, 1998;Henham, 2003).…”

Section: The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent article in this journal, Ralph Henham examined the operation of dangerous offenders legislation in England and Wales with particular reference to the manner and extent to which judges complied with the statutory provisions, many of which ran counter to traditional sentencing theories and practices (Henham, 2003; see also Henham, 2001). Henham found that there was a judicial reluctance to apply the full force of provisions such as longer than commensurate sentences and automatic life sentences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Protecting Dangerous Offenders from the Community:

Richardson

Freiberg

2004

Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1993 and 1997 the Victorian government introduced changes to the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) enabling sentencers to impose longer than proportionate sentences for serious offenders in the name of protection of the community. Many commentators predicted that these provisions signalled the demise of proportionality in sentencing for those offenders. However, although incapacitation policies are popular with politicians and the public, it appears that the judiciary have not embraced these provisions. This article examines the way in which the serious offender provisions have been applied in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria in order to determine whether there is a difference between the Government’s intentions in introducing the legislation and the outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Judicial Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Protecting Dangerous Offenders from the Community:

Richardson

Freiberg

2004

Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this vein, following a recent review of sentencing structures (Home Office, 2001a), Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced, inter alia, an indeterminate preventative sentence for violent or sexual offenders for public protection purposes (Padfield, 2003). Offenders would remain in custody under this protective sentence until it is considered that the risk they presented has sufficiently diminished (Henham, 2003).…”

Section: Penal Provisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing risk

McAlinden

2006

Criminology & Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years the management of the dangerous, particularly sex offenders, has generated enormous concern. This concern has been reflected at a number of different levels-in media and popular responses to the risk posed by released sex offenders and in official discourses where an abundance of legislation and policy reforms have been enacted within a relatively short period. This analysis seeks to evaluate critically these developments within the context of contemporary criminal justice policy and practice in relation to the management of sex offenders in the community. The article analyses the contemporary focus on risk management or preventative governance which underpins the current regulatory framework and has been reflected in both the sentencing options and in control in the community initiatives for sex offenders. In this respect, the article highlights the gap between policy and practice in terms of the effective risk management of sex offenders. Given the failure of the traditional justice system with respect to these types of offences, it will be argued that the retributive framework could usefully be supplemented by the theory and practice of reintegrative or restorative community justice, in order to manage better the risk presented by sex offenders in the community.

show abstract

“…In addition, it is inevitable that differences between jurisdictions and countries will constrain the generalizability of findings from samples of cases, offenders, courts, or areas. Finally, much of the extant literature examines sentencing decisions generally, or the choice of specific sentencing options (e.g., incarceration), and relatively few have investigated the sentencing of specific types of offenders (e.g., violent offenders) or offences (e.g., common assault; for exceptions in the United Kingdom, see, e.g., Gilchrist and Blissett 2002;Henham 2003;Levi 1989;Speed and Burrows 2006).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Methods to Investigate Sentencing Decisions

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The determinants of sentencing are of much interest in criminal justice and legal research. Understanding the determinants of sentencing decisions is important for ensuring transparent, consistent, and justifiable sentencing practice that adheres to the goals of sentencing, such as the punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation of the offender, as well as reparation for the victim. It is important to frame research questions on sentencing that can feasibly be answered by appropriate research methods, within the constraints of limited time and resources. For illustration, this article presents three methodological approaches for investigating the factors that may influence sentencing decisions: multilevel analysis using existing sentencing data; sampling of, and data collection from, sentenced court case files; and experimental designs involving sentencers deciding on hypothetical cases. The strengths and weaknesses of each approach are compared and discussed.

show abstract

The policy and practice of protective sentencing

Cited by 4 publications

References 32 publications

Protecting Dangerous Offenders from the Community:

Protecting Dangerous Offenders from the Community:

Managing risk

Exploring Methods to Investigate Sentencing Decisions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About