Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Trauma-Informed Sentencing

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Trauma-informed Criminal Justice

  • 32 Accesses

Abstract

Sentencing is the process of determining an appropriate sanction in response to proven criminal behaviour based on the law, the context, and the surrounding circumstances of the offence. This chapter explains and demonstrates the application of the sentencing calculus, which comprises sentencing purposes, principles, factors, and non-legal considerations. Judges must explain in sentencing remarks how they have applied the sentencing calculus to the facts of a case to determine the most appropriate sanction to impose. This chapter argues that sentencing should be trauma-informed to achieve sentencing purposes, notably community safety. There is a difference between sentencing where defendants’ trauma has been acknowledged and “trauma-informed sentencing”, the latter being a conscious, evidence-informed strategy that acknowledges trauma-crime relationships. The chapter demonstrates how trauma-informed sentencing is a form of smart justice by applying behaviour change evidence to inform the more efficacious sanction. Trauma-informed sentencing is also a form of justice reinvestment and therapeutic jurisprudence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aronson, M & Groves, M. (2013). Judicial Review of Administrative Action. Thomson Reuters Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2011). Re-evaluating the Justifications for Aggravation and Mitigation at Sentencing. In J. V. Roberts (Ed.), Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing (pp. 21–39). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A. (2015). Sentencing and Criminal Justice (6th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashworth, A., & Kelly, R. (2021). Sentencing and Criminal Justice (7th ed.). Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhouse, C. B. (2016). An Introduction to David Wexler, the Person Behind Therapeutic Jurisprudence. University of Ottawa Working Paper Series, 13(May), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagaric, M. (2014). A Rational Theory of Mitigation and Aggravation in Sentencing: Why Less is More When it Comes to Punishing Criminals. Buffalo Law Review, 62, 1159–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagaric, M., & Alexander, T. (2012). The Capacity of Criminal Sanctions to Shape the Behaviour of Offenders: Specific Deterrence Doesn’t Work, Rehabilitation Might and the Implications for Sentencing. Criminal Law Journal, 36(3), 159–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagaric, M., Edney, R., & Alexander, T. (2021). Sentencing in Australia (8th ed.). Thomson Reuters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagaric, M., Fischer, N., & Wolf, G. (2017). Bringing Sentencing into the 21st Century: Closing the Gap Between Practice and Knowledge by Introducing Expertise into Sentencing Law. Hofstra Law Review, 45, 785–850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagaric, M., Wolf, G., & Isham, P. (2019). Trauma and Sentencing: The Case for Mitigating Penalty for Childhood Physical and Sexual Abuse. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 30, 1–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. M. (2021). How Judges Judge: Empirical Insights into Judicial Decision-Making. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartels, L., Fitzgerald, R., & Freiberg, A. (2018). Public Opinion on Sentencing and Parole in Australia. Probation Journal, 65(3), 269–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Battams, S., Delany-Crowe, T., Fisher, M., Wright, L., McGreevy, M., McDermott, D., & Baum, F. (2021). Reducing Incarceration Rates in Australia Through Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Crime Prevention. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 32(6), 618–645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420979178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, B. (2020). Judicial Discretion and the Rise of Individualization: The Canadian Sentencing Approach. In K. Ambos (Ed.), Sentencing: Anglo-American and German Insights (pp. 249–278). Göttingen University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, P. (2016). Specialist Courts for Sentencing Aboriginal Offenders: Aboriginal Courts in Australia. Federation Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, P., & Whitehead, S. (2013). Better Courts: Cutting Crime Through Court Innovation. Centre for Justice Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull, M., Coomber, R., Moyle, L., Durnian, L., & O’Brien, W. (2021). Sentencing for Social Supply of Illicit Drugs in Australia. Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 638, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cale, J., Zmudzki, F., Hilferty, F., Lafferty, L., Whitten, T., Doyle, M., & Valentine, K. (2019). Evaluation of Home Detention in South Australia: Final Report. SPRC Report/18. Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cale, J., Zmudzki, F., & Whitten, T. (2023). Evaluation of Home Detention in South Australia: Final Report. UNSW Social Policy Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, S. N., & Wilson, J. C. (1998). Discretion, Disparity or Discrepancy? A Review of Sentencing Consistency. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5(2), 237–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719809524937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Classen, C. C., & Clark, C. S. (2017). Trauma-informed Care. In APA Handbook of Trauma Psychology: Trauma Practice (pp. 515–541). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000020-025

  • Cullen, F. T. (2012). Taking Rehabilitation Seriously: Creativity, Science, and the Challenge of Offender Change. Punishment & Society, 14(1), 94–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474510385973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department for Correctional Services. (DCS). (2022). Partners Forum 2022. 10by20 Highlights. Government of South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erez, E., & Rogers, L. (1999). Victim Impact Statements and Sentencing Outcomes and Processes. The Perspectives of Legal Professionals. British Journal of Criminology, 39(2), 216–239. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/39.2.216

  • Freiberg, A. (2017). Parole, Populism and Penal policy. Alternative Law Journal, 42(4), 247. https://doi.org/10.1 177/1037969XI7733160

  • Freiberg, A., Payne, J., Gelb, K., Morgan, A., & Makkai, T. (2016). Drug and Specialist Courts Review. Department of Justice and Attorney General (Qld).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gohara, M. S. (2018). In Defense of the Injured: How Trauma-informed Criminal Defense Can Reform Sentencing. American Journal of Criminal Law, 45(1), 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, G., & Sallen, S. (2013). Considering Child Trauma Issues in Juvenile Court Sentencing. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 34(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, A., Dodd, S., Nolan, M., & Bartels, L. (2022). At the Heart of Sentencing: Exploring Whether More Compassionate Delivery of Sentencing Remarks Increases Public Concern for People Who Offend. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 30(4), 459–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2022.2040398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hora, P. F. (2010). Smart Justice: Building Safer Communities, Increasing Access to the Courts, and Elevating Trust and Confidence in the Justice System. Government of South Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hueston, J. (2021). The Compassionate Court: Reforming the Justice System Inside and Outside. Court Review, 57(2), 100–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, V., Sullivan, D. H., Mawren, D., Freiberg, A., Kulkarni, J., & Darjee, R. (2021). Trauma-informed Sentencing of Serious Violent Offenders: An Exploration of Judicial Dispositions with a Gendered Perspective. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(5), 748–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1855267

  • Jones, L. (2018). Trauma-Informed Care And ‘Good Lives’ In Confinement: Acknowledging and Offsetting Adverse Impacts of Chronic Trauma And Loss Of Liberty. In G. Akerman, A. Needs, & C. Bainbridge (Eds.), Transforming Environments and Rehabilitation: A Guide for Practitioners in Forensic Settings and Criminal Justice (pp. 92–114). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judicial College of Victoria. (JCV). (2020). Victorian Sentencing Manual (4th ed.). JCV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judicial Commission of New South Wales (JCNSW). (2006). Sentencing Bench Book. JCNSW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kezelman, C., & Stavropoulos, P. (2012). ‘The Last Frontier’: Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Complex Trauma and Trauma Informed Care and Service Delivery. Adults Surviving Child Abuse (ASCA).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirchengast, T. (2010). Proportionality in Sentencing and the Restorative Justice Paradigm: ‘Just Deserts’ for Victims and Defendants Alike? Criminal Law and Philosophy, 4(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-010-9088-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasnostein, S., & Freiberg, A. (2013). Pursuing Consistency in an Individualistic Sentencing Framework: If you Know Where You’re Going, how do you Know When You’ve Got There? Law and Contemporary Problems, 76(1), 265–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mack, K., Anleu, S. R., & Tutton, J. (2018). The Judicial and the Public: Judicial Perceptions. Adelaide Law Review, 39, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, W. (2013). Judicial Education. In Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA; Ed.) Australian Courts: Serving Democracy and its Publics (pp. 81‒92). AIJA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruna, S., & Mann, R. (2019). Reconciling ‘Desistance’ and ‘What Works’. HM Inspectorate of Probation.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, N. C., & Holtfreter, K. (2021). Trauma-Informed Courts: A Review and Integration of Justice Perspectives and Gender Responsiveness. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 30(4), 450–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2020.1747128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, K. J. (2023a). Trauma-Informed Sentencing: How South Australian Sentencing Judges Use Information About Defendants’ Child Sexual Abuse Victimization and Subsequent Trauma. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2023.2219674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, K. J. (2023b). Using a Trauma-informed Practice Framework to Operationalise the #raisetheage Campaign. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2023.2196099

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, K. J. (2022). Trauma-informed Sentencing in South Australian Courts. Journal of Criminology, 55(4), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076221113073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, K. J. (2021). Same, Same or Different? Is Trauma-informed Sentencing a Form of Therapeutic Jurisprudence? European Journal of Current Legal Issues, 25(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C., & Maruna, S. (2012). How and why people stop offending: Discovering desistance. IRISS Insights, 15, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for State Courts (NCSC). (2018). Introduction to the Evidence-Based Judicial Decision Making Curriculum. NCSC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach Anleu, S., & Mack, K. (2015). Performing Authority: Communicating Judicial Decisions in Lower Criminal Courts. Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 1052–1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313495765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, J. V. (2011). Punishing, More or Less: Exploring Aggravation and Mitigation at Sentencing. In J. V. Roberts (Ed.), Mitigation and Aggravation at Sentencing (pp. 1–20). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Sentencing Council (SSC). (2021). The Sentencing Process: Sentencing Guideline. Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Advisory Council of Victoria (SACV). (2019). Rethinking Sentencing for Young Adult Offenders. State of Victoria.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sentencing Council. (2024). Sentencing guidelines for use in Crown Court. Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiranovic, C. A., Roberts, L. D., Indermaur, D., Warner, K., Gelb, K., & Mackenzie, G. (2012). Public Preferences for Sentencing Purposes: What Difference Does Offender Age, Criminal History and Offence Type Make? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 12(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895811431847

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP). (2023). Report on Government Services 2023. Part C: Justice. Productivity Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2013). Essential Components of Trauma-informed Judicial Practice. SAMHSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2014). SAMHSA’s Concept of Trauma and Guidance for a Trauma-Informed Approach. US Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hirsch, A. (1998). Proportionate Sentences: A Desert Perspective. In A. von Hirsch & A. Ashworth (Eds.), Principled Sentencing: Readings on Theory and Policy (2nd ed., pp. 168–179). Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, T., & Douglas, H. (2016). Sentencing Parents: The Consideration of Dependent Children. Adelaide Law Review, 37, 135–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K., Davis, J., & Cockburn, H. (2017). The Purposes of Punishment: How Do Judges Apply a Legislative Statement of Sentencing Purposes? Criminal Law Journal, 41, 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, K., Spiranovic, C., Freiberg, A., Davis, J., & Bartels, L. (2018). Aggravating or Mitigating? Comparing Judges’ and Jurors’ Views on Four Ambiguous Sentencing Factors. Journal of Judicial Administration, 28, 51–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, D. B. (2000). Therapeutic Jurisprudence: An Overview. Thomas m. Cooley Law Review, 17(1), 125–134.

    Google Scholar 

Case Law

Legislation

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Criminology, College of Business, Government and Law, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Katherine J. McLachlan

Authors
  1. Katherine J. McLachlan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katherine J. McLachlan .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McLachlan, K.J. (2024). Trauma-Informed Sentencing. In: Trauma-informed Criminal Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59290-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-59290-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-59289-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-59290-4

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation