Argument: Studies show mandatory sentencing does not deter crime
- Mandatory Sentencing for Adult Property Offenders. The Norther Territory Experience. Based on a Presentation to the Australian and New Zealand Society of Criminology Conference 2003. - "The notable feature of Figure 5 is that the rates of reconviction do not change appreciably for first and second strikers. The factors mitigating against the rational decision to commit a property offence, and which are directly associated with the deterrent effect of mandatory sentencing legislation, are:
- The perceived probability of being caught and successfully prosecuted;
- Knowledge that a term of imprisonment is a guaranteed penalty if convicted;
- Knowledge of the minimum length of sentence upon conviction1.
- "Of these three factors, only the third varies as the length of an offender’s criminal history increases. Therefore, to the extent that the length of the minimum sentence applying to a prospective offender’s next strike is an effective deterrent, this fact should be revealed in a lower probability of reconviction after two strikes than is observed after one strike. The data at Figure 5 does not provide support for the idea that the threat, or experience, of a longer sentence reduced the likelihood of a person being reconvicted for a mandatory sentencing-related property offense."