Legislative Framework Assignment Report

Running head: SENTENCING OF OFFENDERS
SENTENCING OF OFFENDERS
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

SENTENCING OF OFFENDERS1
Introduction
The core of the sentencing of offenders is harmonizing of interest under the frameworks
and guiding principles of legislation. The interest that required to get balanced comprising of the
accused, family of the accused, the family of the victim as well as the victim and the community
as a whole. It is restricted by the legislative framework that is a misconception among the public
regarding the procedure of sentencing. The issue that evolves is the complexity of sentencing in
the standings of implementation of ever-changing legislation to the vastly diverse circumstances.
Furthermore, the inevitable disagreement generated by the adversarial structure of the criminal
justice system (Dhami, Belton and Goodman-Delahunty 2015). The secondary concern that
emerges is the observation of sentencer and their initiatives in the separated complicated role laid
unappreciated. The weightiness of the critical uninformed opinion of the public is becoming
burdensome. The paper explores the approaches of judges in the procedure of sentencing, their
attitude, and perceptions towards the process of sentencing in addition to that the character of
judges in implementing the sentencing process (Ashworth 2015).
Discussion
The sentencing is normally designated as harmonizing of diverse interest that engaged in
the procedure. It involve principles, requirement of legislature that is evolved prior case law and

SENTENCING OF OFFENDERS2
interest of the contesting parties that engaged. The task of sentencing in less serious or
straightforward cases for judge might not be burdensome in cases that involve that engaged
severe crime especially case of sexual abuse or physical harm, the assignment becomes
complicated. One third proportion of judges evaluate the procedure of sentencing of offenders as
method of balancing (Bagaric 2015). The judges view themselves as core character in
harmonizing to settle interest. Therefore sentencing is designated the balancing deed in between
the interest of the community, victim, and also offender. The conception of “balancing” has
implemented by court frequently to evaluate the disagreement in between that competing interest
that witnessed in the procedure of sentencing. The notion of balancing is the crucial portion of
the judicial discretionary authority and also found to be significant feature of sentencing in
perceptiveness of judges (O'Byrne 2016). There exist underlying conception of sentencing as the
procedure whereby the judicial authority practice discretionary power to make elements in the
individualized process of sentencing so that proper sentencing can be delivered. The
commentators in the country of United Kingdom and Australia have found the sentencers
frequently indicate the task of sentencing as the art, not necessarily the capability which can be
trained, however, something that can be attained by experience. The skill of sentencing is
inextricable and necessarily connected with the practice of discretionary authority of judges.
There exist robust assistance in case of law for the view that judicial authority regard of what
they are implementing is art for instance two judges in the significant decision of Jurisic in New
South Wales indicate to sentencing in the particular manner (Billings 2019). Therefore the
procedure of sentencing is also designated as art in other areas.
The word “instinctive synthesis” is indicated primarily in Victoria in contrast of two
methods of sentencing wherein the court of sentencing first determine the sentencing that is

SENTENCING OF OFFENDERS3
inflicted to the offender is as per the proportion of crime and then taken in regard the personal
matters of the offender. However, the conception of “instinctive synthesis” been explained by the
scholar Andrew Ashworth as the inscrutable impression in addition to that is intimate to the
perception that the objective of sentencing must be harmonized in every situation (Bagaric
2016). The usage of the term intuition evolves significant issues regarding the process of
decision making of the judicial authority. In case the judge implements “experience,” “intuition,”
“gut reaction” to create a decision in the sentencing process. The attiutes and assumptions that
have been executed and method the assurance of fairness, objectivity as well as consistency in
between the other individual and offender in an identical position. It has been pointed by Justice
Kirby that intuition might be the product of the undetermined physiological forces, social
attitudes, and cultural assumptions (Fitzgerald et al 2016). The judicial authority labeled
sentencing in the context of balancing though few of them intent on labeling the procedure as
“science” or “art.” Henceforth it indicates that either the terminology is seldom implemented or
declining to apply in Queensland. The former is advised by the deficit of use in appellant cases.
Nevertheless, the process of sentencing is opined by judges as an intuitive or instinctive process,
and therefore, the method is favored by judges due to unconsciously or consciously, it permits
the judicial authority to have extreme discretionary power in sentencing.
The judges who participate in the interview seem to consider the task of sentencing that is
set to offenders in procedural and fairly practical terms as criticized for the procedure that is rest
on the theoretical justification for penalizing (Anthony, Bartels and Hopkins 2015). If the judges
are considered on how they view the procedure of sentencing gave a detail explanation of the
guidelines that they monitored in court. This designates that they consider the sentencing of the
offenders in fairly practical means and produce visions on how they proceed with the sentencing