The irrelevance to sentencing of (most) incidental hardships suffered by offenders
Version 2 2024-06-17, 18:32Version 2 2024-06-17, 18:32
Version 1 2016-04-27, 23:44Version 1 2016-04-27, 23:44
journal contribution
posted on 2024-06-17, 18:32authored byM Bagaric, L Xynas, V Lambropoulos
Criminal offenders often experience hardships beyond the imposition of a court-imposed sanction. These hardships typically take a variety of forms, but can be grouped into a number of relatively well-established categories, including loss of employment, public opprobrium and injuries sustained during or around the time of the commission of the crime. Other examples are deportation from Australia and the imposition of traditional forms of punishment.1 Collectively, these harms are termed incidental hardships or extra-curial punishment.2 Formally, extra-curial punishment is defined as a ‘loss or detriment imposed on an offender by persons other than the sentencing court, for the purpose of punishing the offender for his [or her] offence or at least by reason of the offender having committed the offence’.
History
Journal
University of New South Wales law journal
Volume
39
Pagination
47-83
Location
Sydney, N.S.W.
ISSN
1447-7297
Language
eng
Publication classification
C Journal article, C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice
2016, School of Law, University of New South Wales