Sentencing and Post-Sentence Decisions Under Australia’s Counter-Terrorism Laws: Risk-Averse, Not Risk-Based
Under Australia’s counter-terrorism laws, sentenced offenders face the possibility of continuing detention for rolling three-year periods after serving a term of imprisonment. At both stages of decision-making - sentencing and post-sentence - Australian courts favour punishment, deterrence and commu...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2024
|
| In: |
Perspectives on terrorism
Year: 2024, Volume: 18, Issue: 4, Pages: 131-144 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
MARC
| LEADER | 00000caa a22000002c 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 1923190369 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20250616162554.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 250417s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.19165/2024.2550 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)1923190369 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)KXP1923190369 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rda | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 084 | |a 2,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hardy, Keiran |e VerfasserIn |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Sentencing and Post-Sentence Decisions Under Australia’s Counter-Terrorism Laws: Risk-Averse, Not Risk-Based |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Under Australia’s counter-terrorism laws, sentenced offenders face the possibility of continuing detention for rolling three-year periods after serving a term of imprisonment. At both stages of decision-making - sentencing and post-sentence - Australian courts favour punishment, deterrence and community protection over the need to rehabilitate offenders. The need to pre-empt terrorist risks is clear, but these processes lack a sufficient evidence base about recidivism and risk assessment. In this article, I compare, contrast and critically analyse decision-making processes followed by Australian courts when making decisions about imprisonment in terrorism cases. These decisions are made at two different stages: (1) initial sentencing under criminal offences for terrorism, and (2) post-sentence under a Continuing Detention Order (CDO) scheme. Whereas initial sentencing decisions are made under criminal law and impose punishment on offenders, CDOs fall under civil law and are considered nonpunitive, even though they extend the initial punishment. Neither stage relies on a strong evidence base to predict future behaviour, and yet assumptions about future risk are given sufficient weight to justify ongoing deprivations of liberty and undermine core principles of criminal justice. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Terrorism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sentencing | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Radicalisation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Deradicalisation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Risk assessment | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Detention | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Punishment | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Perspectives on terrorism |d Vienna : Terrorism Research Initiative (TRI), 2007 |g 18(2024), 4, Seite 131-144 |h Online-Ressource |w (DE-627)77139988X |w (DE-600)2741257-X |w (DE-576)396693253 |x 2334-3745 |7 nnas |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2024 |g number:4 |g pages:131-144 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://www.jstor.org/stable/27349918 |x Verlag |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.19165/2024.2550 |x Resolving-System |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| ELC | |a 1 | ||
| LOK | |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 | ||
| LOK | |0 001 470658714X | ||
| LOK | |0 003 DE-627 | ||
| LOK | |0 004 1923190369 | ||
| LOK | |0 005 20250616162554 | ||
| LOK | |0 008 250417||||||||||||||||ger||||||| | ||
| LOK | |0 040 |a DE-21-110 |c DE-627 |d DE-21-110 | ||
| LOK | |0 092 |o n | ||
| LOK | |0 852 |a DE-21-110 | ||
| LOK | |0 852 1 |9 00 | ||
| LOK | |0 935 |a krzo | ||
| OAS | |a 1 | ||
| ORI | |a WA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw | ||