Sentencing Female Offenders in the Magistrate's Court: Preliminary Report on a Pilot Study1

IN AUSTRALIA, WHERE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE UNCOMMON, THE SEX of the offender is not officially a relevant factor in sentencing. However, as Fox and Freiberg (1985) note in their text on sentencing in Victoria, a bias in favour of women is 'well entrenched'. Numerous cases are cited in which the courts have stated that it was appropriate to apply a 'lower tariff for females' (p. 465). Appeals on the ground of disparity by a male co-accused against a sentence which is more severe than that imposed on his female co-offender are usually unsuccessful. The reasons given for leniency as a general practice have included 'reasons of compassion', public opinion favouring a more merciful sentence for a female, the lower recidivism rate of women, and the differences in prevalence of crime between the sexes, making deterrent sentences unnecessary in the case of women (p. 466). Fox and Freiberg found that some courts treated child care responsibilities as a reason to reduce a sentence, whilst others took the view that such matters should not automatically give rise to lenience. The Victorian Sentencing Committee (in the nine pages devoted specifically to sentencing women in its three-volume report) in 1988 also noted the tendency to regard being female, and having the care of children, as mitigating factors, although it considered that the courts were now more ambivalent about this. The Committee lamented the lack of research in Victoria on the sentencing of women, which it said made it difficult to evaluate how women were being sentenced, whether they should be given special consideration when being sentenced, and whether they were