U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Indigenous Disparity in Lower Court Imprisonment Decisions: A Study of Two Australian Jurisdictions, 1998 to 2008

NCJ Number
240741
Author(s)
Samantha Jeffries; Christine Bond
Date Published
December 2012
Length
6 pages
Annotation
This study examined Indigenous disparity in lower court imprisonment decisions in two Australian jurisdictions over a 20-year period.
Abstract
Highlights of findings from this study of Indigenous disparity rates in lower court imprisonment decisions in two Australian jurisdictions include the following: Indigenous offenders were more likely to receive a prison term than similarly situated non-Indigenous offenders; the pattern of disparity varied by jurisdiction, with Indigenous offenders in New South Wales more likely to receive prison sentences over the entire study period while Indigenous offenders in South Australia received prison sentences more on par with non-Indigenous offenders during the early years of the study period yet with the disparity in sentencing increasing later in the study period. This study examined three hypotheses regarding sentencing disparity among Indigenous offenders: differential involvement, negative discrimination, and positive discrimination. Data for the study were obtained from two sources: the South Australia Office of Crime Statistics and Research's court database, and the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research courts database. The data covered a 20 year period from 1998 through 2008. Offender social demographics, court processing factors, and past and current offending information were analyzed to determine the impact of Indigenous status on sentencing outcomes. The findings suggest that sentencing disparity continues between Indigenous and non-Indigenous offenders and that this disparity may be increasing. The findings also suggest that the disparity may be due in part to practical constraints such as limited organizational resources, as well as to variances in the number and kind of sentencing factors considered in the study. Figure and references