Suspended sentences and preventive sentences: illusory evils and disproportionate punishments mirko bagaric



Download 320.1 Kb.
Page1/14
Date03.04.2018
Size320.1 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14


SUSPENDED SENTENCES AND PREVENTIVE SENTENCES: ILLUSORY EVILS AND DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENTS

MIRKO BAGARIC*


I. Introduction

A suspended sentence threatens future harm for criminal conduct that has already occurred. It is a term of imprisonment, the execution of which is wholly or partly suspended. Ostensibly, it is a heavy sanction. Available in most Australian jurisdictions and in the United Kingdom, it is frequently employed to punish serious breaches of the criminal law. For example, in 1996 there were over five thousand suspended sentences imposed in Victoria alone.1 During this period, in the County and Supreme Courts of Victoria (which have jurisdiction over the most serious criminal offences) the suspended sentence was the second most commonly imposed sanction, comprising about 30 per cent of all sanctions.2 On the face of it, such figures are unremarkable and are unlikely to prompt consternation, since the popularity of the suspended sentence among sentencers is matched by the enthusiasm for them among recipients. It has been noted that “a defendant who has committed an offence so serious as to merit imprisonment but who has had that sentence wrongly suspended is obviously more likely to be out celebrating than dashing to the Court of Appeal”.3 It will be argued that there is good reason for offenders’ enthusiasm towards suspended sentences; they do not constitute a recognisable form of punishment at all.

This paper considers the nature of the suspended sentence, particularly the pragmatic and conceptual difficulties with it. Following an analysis of the concept of punishment, it is contended that the suspended sentence is merely an illusory unpleasantness and should therefore be abolished as a sentencing option. Further, recent recommendations to reintroduce suspended sentences as a sentencing option in New South Wales,4 the only jurisdiction in Australia where it is presently unavailable, should be rejected.

The suspended sentence will then be compared with the preventive (or protective)5 sentence, which, it is argued, is the logical converse of the suspended sentence. A preventive sentence inflicts immediate harm on an ‘offender’, normally in the form of imprisonment, on account of threatened future criminal conduct; while the suspended sentence threatens a future evil (in the form of restoration of the term of imprisonment which has been suspended) for criminal conduct that has already occurred. Suspended and preventive sentences are also alike in that both violate the principle of proportionality, which forms another basis on which suspended sentences should be abolished. Despite this symmetry, suspended sentences are generally widely accepted, while preventive sentences are almost universally condemned.





Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   14


The database is protected by copyright ©psyessay.org 2017
send message

    Main page
mental health
health sciences
gandhi university
Rajiv gandhi
Chapter introduction
multiple choice
research methods
south africa
language acquisition
Relationship between
qualitative research
literature review
Curriculum vitae
early childhood
relationship between
Masaryk university
nervous system
Course title
young people
Multiple choice
bangalore karnataka
state university
Original article
academic performance
essay plans
social psychology
psychology chapter
Front matter
United states
Research proposal
sciences bangalore
Mental health
compassion publications
workplace bullying
publications sorted
comparative study
chapter outline
mental illness
Course outline
decision making
sciences karnataka
working memory
Literature review
clinical psychology
college students
systematic review
problem solving
research proposal
human rights
Learning objectives
karnataka proforma