Page 3433 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
imprisonment is often felt by victims and their families as necessary. We need to ensure that the community sees the judicial system as trying to reduce the level of crime in our society by giving offenders appropriate opportunities to make reparation for their crimes within society itself, not just by enduring prison life.
Currently the ACT judiciary exercises five types of sentencing options - prison sentences, fines, community service orders, suspended sentences and conditional releases. We need to look in the future at other options, such as periodical detention, intensive supervision and transitional release schemes which fulfil other needs within the criminal justice system. We are somewhat fortunate in the ACT in that we have a small population and our founders did not see the establishment of a prison as an important element in our infrastructure needs, and therefore we have not developed the mentality that prison is the only automatic option for offenders. I encourage the Government to continue to look at all sentencing options which have at their core the aim of the rehabilitation of offenders into normal community life. This will include looking at early intervention programs for young offenders. I believe that the Government currently is taking an interest in interstate programs - for example, the one at Wagga in New South Wales.
There are a number of very positive aspects that will be taken into account in deciding on a sentence after a person is found guilty of a crime. One of these is consideration of the cultural background, which I believe the Attorney-General is going to move by way of an amendment later in this debate. This does not mean, as some may interpret it, that special treatment is given to offenders who come from non-Anglo-Celtic backgrounds. The law is the law for all residents and citizens, and it should be dispensed without fear or favour. But cultural background can inform the courts on alternative sentencing options. I encourage the Government to explore such options with the many committees and councils which exist in the ACT to provide cultural awareness in the community.
I also welcome the separation of community service orders from "own recognisance" requirements. This clearly delineates these as separate sentencing options. They should never be confused. Once a person has breached a recognisance they should be brought back before they face the consequences, not be given a default sentence. If the proper sentence for the crime is community service, then that is the sentence. If "own recognisance" is the sentence, then that should be applied. They are two distinct sentencing options.
I am also pleased to see the emphasis placed on reparation to the victim. The Crimes Act 1900 already allows for reparations under section 437. However, the new emphasis gives the promise that possibly in the future the scope of reparations may be increased beyond what is currently handed out in the courts, which is mainly money for damages or, in vandalism cases, repairing the damage caused. This is one interesting aspect of reparation which may not be well known. Many juveniles who go before the courts are ordered to repair the damage. I feel that it is an option that has further potential for development. Other measures which may have an effect on sentencing and crime rates in general in the ACT are also eagerly awaited - for example, the proposed heroin trial which could see an expected fall in drug related crime. I and others are keen to see that proposal developed and implemented.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .