Her Excellency was on an expert panel at an event in Brisbane last month which discussed how sentencing could better reflect community values.

As director of the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, she oversaw a study of 698 jurors between 2007 and 2009 on their views on sentencing.

Her Excellency said public opinion on mandatory sentencing was mixed and it depended on how the question was posed to them.

But she added if people were asked whether judges should sentence on an individualised basis, a majority would agree.

"On the basis of individual cases, you could say that members of the public … aren't actually clamouring for heavier sentences,” Her Excellency said.

"Maybe child sexual assault is an exception, but in general, violent offences, other sexual offences, they're not clammering for heavier sentences and I think that's an important message.

"The other thing that public opinion research is showing is that when people do say that sentences are too lenient, we find that they underestimate the seriousness of sentencing anyway.”

She said in the juror's study, a majority were content with the amount of discretion a judge had.

"The jurors were not in favour of having a fixed sentence or a mandatory minimum in our study,” Her Excellency said.

Her view somewhat contradicts that of Attorney-General Elise Archer who last week said she believed the Tasmanian community supported mandatory sentences for serious crimes.

She said there was “significant public outcry” last year when the Legislative Council rejected a bill to impose mandatory sentences for child sex crimes.

The Legislative Council also rejected mandatory sentences for serious assaults on paramedics, midwives, nurses, prison officers and off-duty police officers.

“Let’s listen to the community and indeed meet the community’s expectations,” Ms Archer said.