Sentencing for social supply of illicit drugs in Australia

In Australia, threshold quantities of illicit drugs act as an indicator of supply offences in distinguishing traffickers from users. This is problematic because it can be difficult for the courts to discriminate between heavy users or ‘social suppliers’ and ‘dealers proper’. Currently, there is no systematic analysis of how the judiciary in Australia navigate the relationship between different types of supply and the consistency and proportionality of the sentence applied. This analysis maps out how current sentencing practices respond to offenders involved in ‘social supply’ and ‘minimally commercial supply’ who are charged with drug trafficking. It makes recommendations that could inform future drug law reform, including that review is needed of the system of thresholds; that sentencing objectives of general and specific deterrence be reconsidered in cases of social supply and minimally commercial supply; and that consideration be given to expanding the scope of current diversion programs to accommodate the needs of the types of offenders and offending behaviour addressed in this study.

Juvenile Diversion and the Family: How Youth and Parents Experience Diversion Programming

Despite extensive research into juvenile justice interventions, there is a limited focus on family engagement, including parent–child experiences in these various programs. Even less research explores how families, specifically youth and parents, are affected by diversion from the traditional juvenile justice system. The current study fills this gap by drawing from in-depth interviews with 19 parents and 19 youths participating in a juvenile pretrial diversion program in Southern California. This research highlights how a diversion program can influence how families understand the justice system and law-related behaviors. The themes discussed include how diversion programs shape parent–child bonds, how parents navigate negative indictments of youth and themselves for participating in diversion, and the influence of external challenges and social forces shaping youth and parent experiences. Findings support the theoretical contributions from social bond and labeling theory. Implications and future research will also be discussed.

Prosecutors and Sentencing

Prosecutorial decisions play an important, and sometimes a decisive, role in a defendant’s ultimate sentence. They begin with the selection of charges and may end with a recommendation on clemency or expungement of a criminal conviction. The influence of prosecutors over the sentence, therefore, is far more extensive than that of any other official. The charging decision sets the starting point for the sentence range. The prosecution tends to control entry into diversion programs that may spare an offender a criminal record after complying with a set of requirements. Plea bargains, which have become more frequent even in Europe’s civil law countries, usually focus on the type and scope of the criminal justice sentence. Mandatory minimum sentences, mandatory aggravators, and stacked charges provide prosecutors with overwhelming bargaining power, causing many defendants to waive their right to a trial. Judges tend to follow the parties’ agreements and impose the recommended sentence. In many states prosecutors routinely weigh in on parole decisions and determine whether to proceed against defendants for supervision violations. Even in clemency decisions, they frequently submit a recommendation.