Marisela Velazquez, PhD Candidate
James Cook University
 Offender rate
• Despite decreases, Indigenous women continue to experience
higher offending rates than their non-Indigenous counterparts
Women’s offender rate by Indigenous status and selected states/territory
(per 100,000 population), 2007-2013
2007-08
Queensland
South Australia
Northern Territory
New South Wales
2011-12
2012-13
7,192
7,370
6,707
6,852
7,046
8,203
8,453
8,791
8,232
8,600
8,885
4,294
3,404
3,195
2,674
3,042
3,737
5,591
4,378
4,243
4,090
3,223
3,485
2007-08
Queensland
South Australia
Northern Territory
New South Wales
2008-09
Indigenous
2009-10 2010-11
2008-09
Non-Indigenous
2009-10 2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
712
724
660
679
680
504
522
551
539
503
506
385
370
366
330
313
380
603
388
417
405
292
381
 Offender rate
• Current disparities in women’s offending patterns resonates
with trends from nearly 20 years ago
• Dated surveys and other data on police arrests show that
Indigenous women are more likely to be arrested than nonIndigenous women
• Disproportionate rates have long been claimed to reflect the
conduct of policing
 Offender
rate in Queensland
• Indigenous women are 10 times more likely to offend
that non-Indigenous women: 7,046 vs. 680
Women's offender rate, Queensland, 2008-2013
8,000
Per 100,000 population
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
Indigenous
3,000
Non-Indigenous
2,000
1,000
0
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
2012-13
 Criminogenic
behaviour
• Crime generally remains non-serious and non-violent
(with some increases in violent crimes)
• Indigenous women show higher proportions of violent
offences than non-Indigenous women
 Finalised
Proven guilty Sentenced
Selected Higher courts data on women defendants by Indigenous status, Qld. (2009-2012)
Higher Courts
Indigenous
Non-Indigenous
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Number of women finalised (excluding traffic offences)
174
136
142
549
483
399
Indigenous/non-Indigenous women as % of women finalised
21
18
22
66
63
63
Indigenous/non-Indigenous women as % of Indigenous/nonIndigenous offenders finalised
22
19
20
14
13
13
% of Indigenous/non-Indigenous offenders finalised proven guilty
75
79
77
76
78
77
Selected Magistrates’ court data on women defendants by Indigenous status, Qld. (2009-2012)
Magistrates' Courts
Indigenous
2009-10 2010-11
Number of women finalised (excluding traffic offences)
Non-Indigenous
2011-12
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
5,640
5,261
5,061
11,915
11,368
11,579
Indigenous/non-Indigenous women as % of women finalised
27
28
27
57
60
63
Indigenous/non-Indigenous women as % of Indigenous/nonIndigenous offenders finalised
45
45
44
24
25
27
% of Indigenous/non-Indigenous offenders finalised proven guilty
92
91
91
89
88
87

Indigenous women are at present 24 times more likely to be
imprisoned than non-Indigenous women

The gap in prison rates between both groups of women has
widened
Women’s prisoner rates (per 100,000 population), 2000 – 2013
Indigenous Non-Indigenous
2013
415
17
2012
405
17
2011
358
16
2010
374
18
2009
360
18
2008
365
17
2007
2006
366
16
2005
338
16
2004
301
21
2003
296
20
2002
285
19
2001
294
20
2000
251
19

Indigenous women are more likely to serve time in prison for
violent offences than non-Indigenous women
Percentage of Indigenous women in prison by most serious offence type, 2007 – 2013
2007
Homicide
Acts intended to cause injury (AICI)
Sexual assault and related offences
Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons
Abduction and related offences
Robbery, extortion and related offences
Unlawful entry with intent
Theft and related offences
Deception and related offences
Illicit drug offences
Weapons and explosives offences
Property damage and environmental pollution
Public order offences
Road traffic and motor vehicle regulatory offences
Offences against justice procedures, government security and
operations
Miscellaneous offences
2008
8
30
1
1
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
6
9
33
0.5
1
0.7
9
13
8
2
4
0.7
2
1
5
8
31
0.7
2
0.5
9
10
9
3
6
0.5
1
0.8
5
7
35
1
3
0.8
7
11
9
2
4
0.5
0.8
0.8
4
9
33
0.6
3
1
8
12
8
3
2
0.5
2
1
5
8
33
0.5
4
0.8
9
15
7
4
4
0.5
1
0.9
4
8
34
0.8
3
1
9
15
8
3
4
0.4
2
0.9
5
13
0.5
12
0.5
14
0.5
13
10
9
9
0.4
8
14
10
3
4
0.5
2

Non-Indigenous women have a lower likelihood of serving time for
violent offences; instead, increases in illicit drug offences
Percentage of non-Indigenous women in prison by most serious offence type, 2007 – 2013
Homicide
Acts intended to cause injury (AICI)
Sexual assault and related offences
Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons
Abduction and related offences
Robbery, extortion and related offences
Unlawful entry with intent
Theft and related offences
Deception and related offences
Illicit drug offences
Weapons and explosives offences
Property damage and environmental pollution
Public order offences
Road traffic and motor vehicle regulatory offences
Offences against justice procedures, government security and
operations
Miscellaneous offences
2007
12
10
2
1
0.5
7
8
10
14
19
0.4
1
0.6
3
2008
12
11
2
1
0.9
6
9
8
14
19
0.7
2
1
3
2009
11
10
2
2
0.9
6
7
11
15
22
0.6
1
0.6
3
2010
12
11
3
2
0.8
6
7
9
14
23
0.5
1
0.5
2
2011
13.1
11
3.1
2
0.9
5
6
8
13
24
0.3
1
0.5
3
2012
12
9
3
2
0.9
6
7
9
14
25
0.4
2
0.5
2
2013
11
9
3
2
1
6
8
8
12
25
0.4
0.8
0.4
2
10
0.8
10
2
7
0.8
8
0.8
8
1
8
0.3
10
0.6
 Over-representation
of Indigenous women
across the CJS
• Patterns of disparities across all CJ jurisdictions is not
new
• Resonates with historical facts of minority women vs
white women’s treatment
• International and across Australia
 Higher
courts – NSW, SA, WA
• Contradicts historical facts of punitive treatment for
minority women
• Indigenous women are being given lenient treatment
for comparable offences
• Lower likelihood of imprisonment sentences for
Indigenous women than non-Indigenous women
 Judiciary’s
 Focal
assessment of offenders and crime
concerns perspectives
• Blameworthiness
• Risk/community protection
• Constraints

Aim is to gauge sentencers’ explanations for sentencing
discrepancies of Indigenous women

Two key explanations from criminology will be critically
analysed for their applicability to the context of Indigenous
women’s sentencing compared with non-Indigenous
women’s sentencing in the higher courts in North
Queensland

The key questions:
• Why are the higher courts more lenient toward Indigenous women
defendants?
• If sentencers say that they impose prison sentences as ‘last resort’ for
women defendants, why do Indigenous women continue to be
imprisoned at such high rates?
• How have changes in legislation contributed to policy changes on
sentencing?
 Focal
concerns perspective
• Blameworthiness
• Risk/community protection
• Constraints
 Feminist
criminology
• Women are generally treated more leniently than men
due to their criminogenic behaviour
• Femininity role
• Advance understandings of how race and ethnic status
impacts the treatment of minority women in the CJS
 Positive
discrimination – lenient treatment
• Sentencing decisions may favour Indigenous offenders
• Product of judicial awareness of the historical
inequalities (e.g. colonisation).
• Sentencers’ response to political and community
expectations to reduce Indigenous over-representation
 Differential
involvement – punitive treatment
• Differences in sentencing outcomes may be a function
of differences in offending patterns and criminal
histories
• Sentence is not based on Indigenous status
(e.g. not race-based discrimination)
 Interviews
• Participants – judiciary who presides over cases involving
women offenders in the higher courts
• Semi-structured, open-ended interviews
 Observations
• Analyse how gender is constructed in courtrooms
• Field notebooks will be analysed through thematic coding
 Analysis
of court transcripts
• Analysis will be from the previous 25 years
 Data
collection from interviews, observations, and
court transcripts will be analysed through thematic
coding
 Will
pair thematic coding with a grounded theorystyle coding of themes raised from data
 Observe
for links between punitive and lenient
treatment and women’s Indigeneity
 Limitations
• Sentencers are not the sole factor for women’s
treatment in CJS
• Target group – Sentencers

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2012b. Criminal courts, Australia, 2010-11. Cat no. 4513.0
Canberra: ABS.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2013. Prisoners in Australia. cat. no. 4517.0.


Canberra: ABS.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2009. Prisoners in Australia. cat. no. 4517.0. Canberra: ABS.
Bartels, L. (2010). Indigenous women’s offending patterns: A literature review. Research and Public
Policy Series no. 107. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
 Feedback
 Questions