Earlier this week, social media feeds and traditional media outlets were flooded with outpourings of anger and outrage for the victim of Stanford rapist, Brock Turner. This anger stemmed from the disbelief and confusion surrounding his sentence after being found unanimously guilty. The sentence handed down by the Judge Aaron Persky was that of six months in prison with the possibility of being released after three months. One of his reasons for serving this particular sentence was the belief that a longer sentence would have had a ‘severe impact’ on the twenty year old Stanford student.
This is not the first time the public has been distressed after hearing the final sentencing. Criminologist Doctor Karen Gelb claims that these feelings and opinions stem from earlier decades in Australian history as the 1960s saw the rise of the victims’ movement. Further, as rehabilitation and government intervention programs were increasingly unsuccessful, crime rates continued to rise and views of the public on sentencing became increasingly prominent.
Sentencing laws have been designed to allow courts to impose financial penalties or loss of freedom on offenders, limiting their decisions to guidelines already in place by legislation and the principles laid down by superior courts.
The media plays a significant role in the public perception of sentencing as they capture high-profile court cases with confrontational and sensitive issues such as domestic violence, but often do not explain how the court came to their decision.
Therefore, when judging the judge for their decision, here are some things to keep in mind.
- Many believe that issuing a longer sentence acts as a deterrent to the offender, or a way of ensuring the offender cannot commit the same crime. As was seen in Veen v R (No 2) [1988] HCA 14, it is possible to spend a significant period in prison and commit the same crime upon release. In this case, it was held that ‘while protection of the community is a consideration in the sentencing of offenders, a sentence should not be increased beyond what is proportionate to the crime merely to protect the community from the risk of further offending by the offender’.
In many ways, this case illustrated that issuing a longer sentence no longer acts as a deterrent for offenders. - It has also been argued that judges are too lenient in their judgements. However, a recent study identified that 90% of the public who were fully informed about the circumstances of the case and offender, viewed the judge’s sentence as appropriate.
These factors above in no way justify the offender’s actions in the current US rape case, but are possibly some of the other contributing factors to the American judge’s stance on the sentence.
What should be of comfort to those opposing Brock Turner and the Judge who handed down the final sentence, is the presence of the Sex Offender’s Registry. Whilst his sentence is not long enough, the development of Google and harsh restrictions of the Registry will ensure that Mr Turner will not forget his crimes anytime soon. Nor will anyone else.
If you believe you were given an unfair sentence, or have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact our offices on 02 8719 8700.