Ideally retribution exists around the notion that those who commit crime should experience some form of suffering for their negative actions. In such countries as the United States of America, retribution has become the primary objective of punishment, whilst rehabilitation has become almost completely instinct. Even though it is listed as one of the purposes of sentencing within the Australian legislation, research has questioned rehabilitation's ability to achieve its goals . Incapacitation on the other hand can be contrasted to the likes of retribution for it is the severest form of punishment, and at the same time protects the community by minimising the possibility of relapse on the criminal's behalf for a specified period of time. Deterrence on the other hand exists in two different forms and is brought about by a combination of the fore mentioned objectives of punishment. Firstly it manifests itself in the form of a "specific deterrence," which aims to dissuade the offender from committing further crime; and secondly as a "general deterrence" which aims to dissuade others by making them aware of punishments that have bestowed those who committed similar crimes.
In a number of Australian jurisdictions, "just deserts" seems to be one of the governing purposes of punishment or, indeed, the primary principle of punishment. And this principle centers around the concept that punishment should be the consequences of criminal activity extracting justice, not so much as rehabilitation. The Australian Law Reform Commission in an attempt to clarify "just deserts" suggested that such factors as intent, premeditation, planning and methods be considered, inevitably setting sentencing guidelines . The legislation in the A.C.T alone makes relevant the degree to which an offense was the result of provocation, duress or entrapment . Other factors that are taken into account when passing sentence include the degree of participation, breach of trust, consequences and impact on victim and society as a whole, youthfulness, vulnerability and the possibility that there existed unforeseeable consequences. In cases were there exists prior convictions, the courts will generally punishes the offender more severely, if the previous matter is of relevance to the current case. In Victoria, if the accused is of supposed 'good character' and has contributed moderately to society in past, the penalties imposed on them will generally be less in severity unless the crime is one of common occurrence (with the particular individual) or if they have been convicted on charges of drug trafficking.
