When sentencing criminals who have been found guilty in the Australian Justice System, a range of justifications for punishments are available to judges and magistrates, as well as a range of discretionary applications. It is assumed that by allowing these options, a judge is enabled to determine the most appropriate means to address a case and mete out a fair and reasonable punishment. Thus, it can be expected that with the range of sentencing options made available to judges, sentences will carry with them fair and just punishment for each crime, such to benefit the society the justice system seeks to represent.

However, since the choice of punishment come down to a judge's own discretion, concern may be raised as to whether punishment is consistent and equal, and what influences a judge in their choice.  This concern can be narrowed to a question of what influences judges in making the decision of the means to use in punishing an offender, and how severe the punishment should be. By exploring the different avenues of punishment made available to a judge, as well as the nature of leniency with respect to maximum sentences, a set of basic criteria by which two sentences for different criminal behaviour can be compared, allowing speculation on mitigating circumstances of the offence.

This essay aims to compare six cases pertaining to different criminal activities, each committed by individuals of different ages, in order to determine whether it is more likely that a younger offender will be sentenced in such a way to prevent further crime or to simply punish the offence. Further comparison will be made as to the level of mercy applied by the court with respect to the maximum penalty of each offence, enabling observation as to what level of effect an offender's age has upon the sentence they receive in court.

At its simplest definition, a sentence is simply a punishment handed out by a court in response to a criminal act. Additionally, by definition punishment is a form of (mental) pain or unpleasantness given to to an individual by an authority as a direct consequence of an offence against established laws. In the context of the Criminal Justice System, these established laws represent the values of society, and hence a sentence should address an offence in a manner that best able to benefit society with respect to the individual offence committed. This means that sentences should display a level of mercy appropriate to the offence, whilst chastising an act with established goals of how the punishment will benefit the society it represents.

The means by which a sentence can address an offence are enshrined in law, with a series of goals dictating how a punishment can benefit society. Section 5 of the Victorian Sentencing Act sets out a list of five punishment rationales that are available to a court when imposing a sentence, divided by their aims and how they benefit society. The first set of such rationales are designed to reduce the focus of punishment on the offender, with the interest in treating the effects crime has on society. As a general rule, these utilitarian rationales aim to benefit society by reducing offences committed, and promoting socially-agreed attitudes. Alternatively, the other of criteria set out to simply provide punishment for an offence because an offender deserves it for their misdeeds, with focus on making punishment as harsh on possible on an offender. These retributist rationales benefit society by sating the need to see undesirable acts punished, and by doing so they reinforce social values.

There are three utilitarian sentencing options available to the court. These rationales are ones that set out to try and correct offending behaviour – operating under a basic principle of “What works?”. This can be expanded by the aims of a utilitarian sentence – at the core of utilitarian punishment is the intention to prevent offending behaviour by re-establishing the importance of socially-agreed values in offenders; the act of punishing the activity is of less importance than reducing the rate at which it occurs. “What works?” refers to the need to find a sentence that addresses future criminality in a preventative manner at either a general or specific level – which raises the pivotal criticism of the entire category of punishment: utilitarian sentences punish for proposed future offending, instead of only considering the case at hand. The three utilitarian sentencing rationales are deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation, each carrying their own benefits and criticisms.

When deterrence is used as a rationale, a judge must consider three major factors, each relating to the offenders it attempts to deter. In order for deterrence to be successful, the punishment must be communicated to potential offenders, the potential offender must be capable of changing their behaviour, and the potential offender must see the punishment as credible. These are all reasonable goals; as the nature of deterrence is to prevent activities of a criminal nature from occurring in the first place – hence, by communicating to a potential offender that if they do not change their behaviour, they face a serious risk of receiving a set punishment, it heavily encourages the individual to reconsider their activities.  However, there is a single major criticism of this rationale – punishing an individual for the purpose of deterring others disrespectfully makes example of that person as an object to benefit others. Critics of deterrence claim an offender should be punished for their own crime, not punished to the 'benefit' of others.

When making consideration for the punishment of rehabilitation, a judge must assume the nature of determinism, and seek to neutralise the factors that lead an individual to commit crime. This punishment speaks of the decency of society; claiming that an offender's attitudes towards criminal behaviour can be 'fixed'  and realigned with society, allowing that individual to be reintegrated and become a functioning member of society. Yet, even with the clear benefits to society and the individual,  rehabilitation carries with it four major criticisms: legitimising disparity in sentencing; misusing societies resources; meting out longer and harsher sentences; and victimising through coercion (where the courts see 'treatment', and individual may see 'punishment'.