Common Law Sentencing of Mentally Impaired Offenders in Australian Courts: A Call for Coherence and Consistency

View/ Open
Author(s)
Edgely, Michelle
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2009
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
This article discusses the common law sentencing of mentally impaired offenders in Australian courts. In Part A, the author discusses the significant correlation between mental impairment and crime. In Part B the author considers how courts have used different sentencing purposes (incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and proportionate retribution) in determining appropriate sentences for this class of offender. The author highlights the inconsistencies that have developed within and between jurisdictions. In Part C the author argues that the inconsistencies have arisen as a result of the theoretically incoherent use ...
View more >This article discusses the common law sentencing of mentally impaired offenders in Australian courts. In Part A, the author discusses the significant correlation between mental impairment and crime. In Part B the author considers how courts have used different sentencing purposes (incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and proportionate retribution) in determining appropriate sentences for this class of offender. The author highlights the inconsistencies that have developed within and between jurisdictions. In Part C the author argues that the inconsistencies have arisen as a result of the theoretically incoherent use of general deterrence, rather than proportionality, as a site for the consideration of diminished offender culpability.
View less >
View more >This article discusses the common law sentencing of mentally impaired offenders in Australian courts. In Part A, the author discusses the significant correlation between mental impairment and crime. In Part B the author considers how courts have used different sentencing purposes (incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and proportionate retribution) in determining appropriate sentences for this class of offender. The author highlights the inconsistencies that have developed within and between jurisdictions. In Part C the author argues that the inconsistencies have arisen as a result of the theoretically incoherent use of general deterrence, rather than proportionality, as a site for the consideration of diminished offender culpability.
View less >
Journal Title
Psychiatry Psychology and Law
Volume
16
Issue
2
Copyright Statement
© 2009 Routledge. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal website for access to the definitive, published version
Subject
Criminal Law and Procedure
Forensic Psychology
Psychology
Cognitive Sciences
Law