It seems to be a commonly held view that police do all the hard work of catching criminals, only for ‘bleeding heart’ judges and magistrates to let them off the hook when they get to court.
Earlier in November this year, schoolgirl Taneeka Orchard who committed an unprovoked attack on another girl at a party after drinking two litres of cheap wine met with a magistrate who ‘understands’ how the whole thing happened.
The seventeen-year-old defendant punched the girl in the face, grabbed her by the hair, slammed her into the ground and kneed her in the nose.
She was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
In court, Orchard was gently lectured and given community service, even though her victim suffered short-term memory loss as well as significant physical damage: patches of missing hair, bleeding, bruising and having her nose ring forced into her nose.
It is easy to understand how many readers of this story would be angry at the seemingly-lenient punishment she received.
Former Magistrate Patricia O’Shane has been criticised by the media for years as being anti-police and soft on sentencing.
In one case, Ms O’Shane sparked outrage with her comments that the killer of Thomas Kelly was an “ordinary, everyday lad in our society” and that prison was not the answer for people like him.
Mr Kelly, the father told AM radio host Ray Hadley that he and his family now knew that the legal system went easy on offenders while doing nothing to help victims.
Ms O’Shane’s court was known for controversy and her perceived anti-prosecution stance – in some cases going so far as to advise unrepresented defendants about the law.
Although Ms O’Shane retired in 2013 when she reached the age of 72, the belief that many Magistrates and Judges are ‘too soft on criminals’ has found it’s way into the minds of the general public – perhaps due to the media’s focus on ‘lenient’ sentences and distorted reporting of cases.
Politicians also get in on the action, promising mandatory sentences which can fetter judicial discretion, and declaring their ‘tough on crime’ stance.
But just how accurate is this stereotype of lenient Magistrates and Judges indiscriminatingly letting criminals off the hook left, right and centre?
Studies have shown that many people believe courts to be too lenient when sentencing offenders.
In one study, 66 per cent of people living in NSW thought that sentences handed down were not tough enough.
The Bureau of Statistics recently decided to conduct a study putting this view to the test.
Participants in the study were asked to suggest an appropriate sentence after watching a trial.
Astonishingly, the sentences that most participants proposed turned out to be more lenient than the ones actually imposed by the Magistrate.
In fact, this was the case in 90 per cent of the responses.
So, putting aside public opinion, and controversial stories that make it into the news because they are so out of the ordinary, the study concluded that the idea that offenders are free to reoffend because courts just let them off scot-free is a myth.
In fact, in many small drug possession cases, even first-time offenders have ended with a criminal conviction, which is not a trivial consequence.
Here are some examples of the actual punishments that offenders have been given by the courts:
Drug offences:
In all the cases heard in the local courts between April 2010 and March 2014, the majority of offenders got a criminal conviction, even for cannabis, which is often portrayed as a less serious drug, and doesn’t carry the social stigma that other drugs do.
The most common penalty for drug offenders was a fine, which comes with a criminal record.
Drink driving:
Only 22 per cent of drink drivers managed to avoid a criminal conviction, according to a NSW Bureau of Crime and Research (BOCSAR) study done in 2012.
But what about more serious charges like murder or burglary?
Homicide:
As expected, 100 per cent of people who committed a murder in 2009 and 2010 got a prison sentence, with an average aggregate sentence of 11.8 years, according to BOCSAR.
And 96.2 per cent of all those convicted of manslaughter received a prison sentence.
About a third of those convicted of drink driving causing death received went to prison.
Sexual offences:
86 per cent of offenders found guilty of aggravated sexual assault received a prison sentence in 2011 (BOCSAR) and the average aggregate prison sentence was over six years.
Break and enter:
The same study found that 92.5 per cent of those convicted of break and enter offences spent time behind bars.
The average aggregate sentence that they received was over three years.
From minor crimes to the most serious, courts can and do impose serious punishments.
Perhaps it is time that people took another look at the judiciary, and re-evaluated the perception that courts go too easy on offenders – statistics show that even minor crimes like possession of a small quantity of drugs can have long-reaching impacts and stigma attached to the imposition of a criminal record.
Serious crimes overwhelmingly come with prison time.
Outliers like Taneeka Orchard or the court of Magistrate O’Shane are rare, which is probably why they make the news.
Unfortunately, “offender receives appropriate punishment for crime” doesn’t make headlines very often.
