The High Court resists the New Racism From the report in The Age, you might conclude the New Racism is becoming even further entrenched in law, offering added inducement to identify as Aboriginal: Judges will need to consider the Aboriginal background of an offender when sentencing them after a landmark High Court decision ruled that the effects of profound disadvantage do not diminish over time. The High Court ruled for the first time on Wednesday that a person's Aboriginal background may reduce their sentence if they come from a deprived or disadvantaged background... ""I'm not expecting indigenous people to get really light sentences but I'm expecting that that trajectory of sentences getting harsher will be brought back a bit,"" Dr [Thalia] Anthony said. But the two relevant judgments handed down by the High Court this week suggest there is less to fear. The High Court on its Munda decision: While it was relevant to take into con sideration an offender's circumstances of severe social disadvantage, the High Court held that the same sentencing principles must be applied in every case irrespective of an offender's identity or his or her membership of an ethnic or other group. The High Court says the same in its Bugmy decision: The High Court also held that the same sentencing principles apply irrespective of the identity of a particular offender or his or her membership of an ethnic or other group. Additionally, the joint reasons held that the effects upon an offender of profound deprivation do not diminish over time and should be given full weight when sentencing the offender. However, those effects do not necessarily serve to mitigate an offender's sent ence given the conflicting purposes of punishment, such as rehabilitation and personal and general deterrence, which must be balanced in each individual case. Mind you, the possibility remains for judges in lower courts to take a wide definition of "background" and to treat offenders less as individuals than representatives of some "race" or tribe.