Abstract
In 2010, two Australians, convicted in childhood of rape and murder, lodged a
joint submission with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming
that successive changes to sentencing legislation in New South Wales breached
their human rights by denying them any meaningful prospect of release. In this
article, we examine the political, legislative and procedural moves that have
resulted in Australian children being sentenced to life without parole or release.
We argue that successive legislative changes in various Australian jurisdictions
have resulted in a framework for sentencing decisions that is considerably out
of step with international legal standards for criminal justice. These increasingly
punitive legislative changes exacerbate Australia’s already declining record of
cooperation with UN processes, and reveal Australia’s reluctance to respect the
legitimacy and authority of international law. Against this troubling context, the
views of the Human Rights Committee serve as a much-needed reminder about
the importance of a principled approach to child sentencing that forecloses
neither the goal of rehabilitation nor the prospect of release and reintegration.
joint submission with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming
that successive changes to sentencing legislation in New South Wales breached
their human rights by denying them any meaningful prospect of release. In this
article, we examine the political, legislative and procedural moves that have
resulted in Australian children being sentenced to life without parole or release.
We argue that successive legislative changes in various Australian jurisdictions
have resulted in a framework for sentencing decisions that is considerably out
of step with international legal standards for criminal justice. These increasingly
punitive legislative changes exacerbate Australia’s already declining record of
cooperation with UN processes, and reveal Australia’s reluctance to respect the
legitimacy and authority of international law. Against this troubling context, the
views of the Human Rights Committee serve as a much-needed reminder about
the importance of a principled approach to child sentencing that forecloses
neither the goal of rehabilitation nor the prospect of release and reintegration.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 5 |
| Pages (from-to) | 111-133 |
| Number of pages | 134 |
| Journal | Australian Journal of Human Rights |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 4 Sept 2016 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- life without parole
- children's rights
- sentencing
- Bronson Blessington
- Matthew Elliott
- Janine Balding
-
The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Victoria (Australia): Examining stakeholders’ views and the need for principled reform
O'Brien, W. & Fitz-Gibbon, K., 1 Aug 2017, In: Youth Justice. 17, 2, p. 134-152 19 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
10 Link opens in a new tab Citations (Scopus) -
The naming of child homicide offenders in England and Wales: The need for a change in law and practice
Fitz-Gibbon, K. & O'Brien, W., 1 Sept 2017, In: The British Journal of Criminology. 57, 5, p. 1061–1079 19 p.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
-
Life without Parole in Australia: Current Practices, Juvenile and Retrospective Sentencing
Fitz-Gibbon, K., 1 Dec 2016, Life Imprisonment and Human Rights. van Zyl Smit, D. & Appleton, C. (eds.). 1st ed. Oxford UK: Hart Publishing, p. 75-96 24 p. (Oñati International Series in Law and Society).Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (Book) › Research › peer-review
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver