Sentences for certain types of offenders - particularly child sex offenders and violent criminals - often draw criticism from victims' advocates or the wider public for being "too soft".

Recently, for example, Beyond Abuse chief executive Steve Fisher described the sentence school cleaner Rachel Lee Reily received for sexually abusing a 13-year-old boy as disgraceful.

The 28-year-old Devonport woman was sentenced to two years' jail, with the second half of the term suspended, and would be eligible for parole after six months in jail.

Reily's sentencing came about two weeks after Chief Justice Alan Blow discussed public perceptions about leniency in sentencing, saying they were a matter of concern.

"Those perceptions are no doubt shaped by the media," Chief Justice Blow said in a speech prepared for the opening of Law Week.

"In Tasmania, judges and magistrates are generally not exposed to extreme or unfair criticism of their sentences by the media in the way that our colleagues are in some mainland states.

"However, it is common for media outlets to report the disappointment of victims and their loved ones after a sentence has been imposed, or to pay little or no attention to mitigating circumstances that a sentencer has taken into account.

"And, of course, there is nothing newsworthy in a report that someone considered a sentence fair and appropriate."

Chief Justice Blow said Professor Kate Warner published interesting statistics in 2011 related to a study concerning jurors' attitudes to sentencing.

"Over a period of two years, 698 jurors responded to a survey after serving on juries that returned guilty verdicts," Chief Justice Blow said.

"Before learning what sentence the judge had imposed, each juror was asked to select an appropriate sentence for the offender.

"At that stage, 52 per cent of the jurors selected a more lenient sentence than the judge did.

" ... in cases involving crimes of violence, 66 per cent of the respondents thought that sentences for violent offending were too lenient, but only 35 per cent of them wanted more severe sentences in the particular cases that they had deliberated on."

Justice Blow also spoke about the legal profession's "public image problem".

"The extent of the problem can be seen from some survey results that are available on the internet," he said.

"According to the Roy Morgan Image of Professions Survey 2021, lawyers ranked 14th out of 30 professions in relation to public perceptions of ethics and honesty.

"The most highly regarded professions were nurses, doctors, pharmacists, schoolteachers and dentists, all scoring over 70 per cent.

"The least respected were stockbrokers, business executives, federal and state MPs, insurance brokers, real estate agents, advertising people and car salesmen, all scoring under 10 per cent.

"Lawyers ranked below police, accountants, ministers of religion and public servants.

"However they ranked above bank managers, union leaders and financial planners."

Chief Justice Blow noted Supreme Court judges ranked eighth, with a score of 63 per cent.