Media Release

Mandatory sentencing: costs may outweigh benefits

13 December 1999

Mandatory sentencing is a questionable crime prevention strategy, states a report released today by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

The report, Mandatory Sentencing by Declan Roche, assesses the legal, social and other impacts of mandatory sentencing, and scrutinises the arguments and evidence for mandatory sentencing.

Highlighting inconclusive evidence that mandatory sentencing achieves reductions in crime, the report suggests money might be more wisely spent on crime detection and early intervention programs, focusing on family and education.

The costs of mandatory sentencing include increased court expenses as more defendants contest charges to avoid the mandatory penalty, rather than just entering a plea of guilty. More significant is the cost of imprisoning increased numbers of offenders. In Australia it costs an estimated $60 000 to house each prisoner per year and approximately $200 000 to build a new cell.

The report cites US cost-benefit analyses which estimate that every $1m spent on "three strikes and you're out" laws would prevent 60 serious crimes, whereas providing parent training and assistance for families with young children at risk would prevent 160 serious crimes, and giving cash incentives to encourage disadvantaged high school students to graduate would prevent 258 serious crimes.

"Although society assumes punishment has a deterrent effect, it is not always that simple. Much crime is impulsive with little deliberation involved. Efforts to turn potential offenders into good citizens may be more productive in earlier stages of their development rather than attempting to deter criminal behaviour through more rigid sentencing policies", Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology, Dr Adam Graycar, said today.

The main claims by advocates of mandatory sentencing are that it prevents crime; provides consistency in sentencing; and is a democratic response to widespread public concern about crime.

Opponents claim that, rather than delivering consistency, mandatory sentencing delivers equal sentences to unequal offenders.

The report suggests that judges may be in a better position to ensure that justice is served through a greater understanding of the context of the offence, than legislation which cannot make allowances for the circumstances associated with individual crimes.

References

• Download paper: Mandatory sentencing