At Pannu Lawyers, we deal with sentencing every day. It is one of the most significant stages of any criminal matter, because it is the point at which the court determines the legal and social response to offending. The community often assumes sentencing is about punishment alone, but the reality is more complex. Sentencing in New South Wales is governed by section 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). That section sets out the purposes that guide every judge and magistrate when handing down a penalty.
These purposes include punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, community protection, accountability, and recognition of harm to victims. Each purpose has a role, but in practice, deterrence both general and specificis often central to the sentencing exercise.
Understanding how deterrence operates is essential for anyone facing sentencing, as it often determines the severity of the outcome.
Why Purposes Matter ?
The law does not allow a court to punish arbitrarily. Every sentence must be justified by one or more recognised purposes. This framework ensures sentences are not based on emotion or public pressure but on legal principle. It also means that sentences can vary greatly depending on which purpose is most important in a particular case. For example, rehabilitation may be dominant for a young offender with no prior record, while deterrence may weigh more heavily for an offender who repeatedly breaches the law.
At Pannu Lawyers, we appear in sentencing cases daily when the client has opted to plead guilty or is found guilty by the Court. We know how prosecutors and judges view deterrence, and we know how to challenge or balance it with rehabilitation, proportionality, and individual circumstances.
General Deterrence – Sending a Message to Society
General deterrence is about sending a warning to the community at large. The sentence must send a clear message: “If you commit this crime, expect this type of punishment.” Courts use general deterrence to discourage others from committing the same offence. For example:
In armed robbery cases, courts impose strong custodial sentences because robbery is prevalent and dangerous. The penalties must discourage others from seeing robbery as a quick way to obtain money.
In serious traffic offences, particularly drink driving and dangerous driving, general deterrence is heavily emphasised. The message must be clear that such conduct endangers lives and will attract harsh penalties.
In white-collar crimes, general deterrence is often more important than rehabilitation. In fraud or insider trading, the profit motive means penalties must outweigh the potential financial gain. When a court stresses general deterrence, it is deliberately speaking to the community, not just to the offender. This is why even first-time offenders can receive severe penalties if the offence type is considered a growing social problem.
Specific Deterrence – Stopping the Individual
Specific deterrence is different. It is directed at the offender before the court. The goal is to stop that specific person from reoffending by making the personal consequences clear and unavoidable. Courts rely on specificdeterrence particularly where:
The offender has a long criminal history.
Prior penalties have not worked.
The offence is committed while on bail, parole, or probation.
The offender shows little remorse or insight.
For example, a repeat drink driver who has previously been fined and disqualified will likely face jail on a subsequent offence. The reasoning is that lighter penalties have failed, so a harsher sentence is required to stop further offending.
Similarly, persistent property offenders or drug traffickers may face stronger sentences where the court considers specific deterrence paramount. the Courts have made clear that repeat offending increases the weight of specific deterrence, though the sentence must still remain proportionate.
At Pannu Lawyers, we know how to reduce the impact of specific deterrence arguments by showing the court positive steps taken by the offender such as rehabilitation, counselling, and community service which prove that harsher punishment is unnecessary.
The Balance Between Deterrence and Proportionality
Deterrence is powerful, but it is not unlimited. Courts are bound by the principle of proportionality. As the courts have stated on many occasions that a sentence cannot be increased beyond what is just merely to deter others.
This means deterrence must always be balanced against other considerations:
Youth and rehabilitation – young offenders with strong prospects of reform may receive leniency, because their rehabilitation outweighs deterrence.
Mental health issues – deterrence carries less weight where mental illness reduces the offender’s ability to be influenced by punishment.
First-time offenders – the court may give more weight to rehabilitation and personal circumstances, especially if deterrence can still be achieved through non-custodial options.
At Pannu Lawyers, we argue proportionality relentlessly. The court cannot use a person as a scapegoat for society. Every sentence must be tailored to the offence and the offender, no matter how loudly deterrence is pressed by the prosecution.
Policy Rationale – Why Deterrence Matters ?
The law relies heavily on deterrence because it speaks to the legitimacy of the justice system. The community expects courts to impose penalties that discourage crime. If penalties are too lenient, public confidence erodes.
Yet deterrence has limitations. Many crimes are not the product of rational calculation but are committed impulsively, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or in the heat of emotion. In these cases, the threat of punishment may not deter at all. Critics argue that deterrence is overvalued, particularly for vulnerable offenders.
Nevertheless, deterrence continues to be a cornerstone of sentencing. For offences like drug supply, sexual assault, domestic violence, and fraud, courts consider deterrence indispensable. These crimes carry high social costs, and sentences must show the public that such conduct will not be tolerated.
Conclusion
The purpose of sentencing in NSW is to balance multiple objectives: punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, protection of the community, accountability, and recognition of harm. Among these, general deterrence and specific deterrence remain two of the most powerful influences on sentencing outcomes.
General deterrence ensures the community knows crime will be punished.
Specific deterrence ensures the offender is discouraged from reoffending. But deterrence must always be checked against proportionality and fairness. Sentences must remain just, tailored to the offence, and responsive to the circumstances of the offender.
At Pannu Lawyers, we fight to ensure that deterrence is not applied as a blunt instrument. We argue strongly for rehabilitation, for proportionality, and for sentencing outcomes that are fair rather than excessive. If you are facing sentencing, you need lawyers who understand how deterrence operates and how to limit its weight.
