Mandatory Sentencing and Wrongful Conviction in Australian Law

MANDATORY SENTENCING AND WRONGFUL CONVICTION IN AUSTRALIAN LAW 1
MANDATORY SENTENCING AND WRONGFUL
CONVICTION IN AUSTRALIAN LAW
by Name
Course Name
Professors Name
University
City and State
Date

MANDATORY SENTENCING AND WRONGFUL CONVICTION IN AUSTRALIAN LAW 2
Question 1: Mandatory sentencing
Mandatory sentencing implies that a person convicted of a crime must be imprisoned for
a defined period of time, as opposed to leaving the determination of the length of punishment to
the judges. An example of such is sentencing for cocaine possession which is a minimum of
five-year jail term as defined by law. These sentences force the judges to deliver a fixed verdict
on offenders regardless of how punishable the offense is or without consideration of other
litigation factors. The mandatory sentencing is considered as one of the significant factors
contributing to prison crowding and racial disparities on the convictions of such offenders (ABC
News, 2018).
The effects of principles of proportionality.
The principle of proportionality require judges to determine whether the sentence is
proportional to the crime committed (Harbo, 2010). There are no defined guidelines in
measuring crime; however, there are three viewpoints to consider in measuring proportionality:
the first viewpoint is the effect on the person being convicted; secondly the effect on the entire
society and lastly the victim’s viewpoint.
The principle has a direct impact on the offender, the community, and the victims, and
therefore its application must comply with the legislative guiding tenets (Harbo, 2010).
According to Anđelković, (2017), there is a general perception that the wrong application of the
principle of proportionally and the mandatory sentencing law are the leading causes of the
growth in prison population. The same has also been seen as the leading reason for the racial
disparities in sentencing.
Question 2: Wrongful conviction