Page 3434 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 13 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Before closing I would like to comment on what I see as adjunct measures to this amendment Bill yet to be developed - the adoption of victim impact statements and a review of the use of unsworn statements, both of which Mr Humphries referred to earlier. Both of these issues are before the Assembly at present and will be dealt with in their own time. I welcome the examination of those issues. Today we enshrine in legislation ways to ensure open, fair and consistent treatment during the sentencing process of people found guilty of crimes. Madam Speaker, I commend the Bill and the Government's amendments at this stage to the Assembly.
MS ELLIS (3.33): Madam Speaker, as the Attorney-General has said, this Bill is one of the many reforms to the criminal justice process for which this Government has been responsible. The Government is committed to ensuring that Canberra is a safe place in which to live. Nevertheless, the answer to such problems as those we saw arising in Civic last year does not lie in imposing unduly harsh penalties on a small number of individuals. The prevention and deterrence of crime is a community responsibility. As part of the Government's strategy in addressing these problems it is important that the process for dealing with those charged with a criminal offence is seen by the community to be fair and rational. It is also important that penalties which are imposed not only reflect the seriousness of the offence committed but also take into account the individual circumstances of the offender.
I believe that the Bill serves a useful function in stating clearly for those both within and outside the legal system the major considerations on which the delicate task of imposing an appropriate sentence hinges. Madam Speaker, in recent times we have heard several calls from the Opposition for the introduction of mandatory prison sentences for certain criminal offences. Such arguments ignore the complex social problems which underlie much offending behaviour, problems which include drug abuse and psychiatric illness. Such arguments demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the outcome of schemes which have been trialled in the USA and, to a lesser extent, in other Australian jurisdictions.
Research into such schemes has shown that the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences results in inflexibility in regard to individual cases and leads to a greater disparity in sentencing because police officers may avoid charging people under what they consider to be particularly harsh laws in individual cases. Numbers of dismissals also typically increase, so that fewer people are convicted, but those who are receive much harsher penalties. In addition, there has been no demonstrable impact on the incidence of drug use or use of firearms in those jurisdictions where mandatory minimum penalties have been introduced for these offences.
This Bill, I believe, presents a much more balanced approach to sentencing. While it details the major factors which courts must take into consideration and recognises, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, that imprisonment must be considered the punishment of last resort, sentencers will retain an appropriate degree of flexibility to deal with individual circumstances as they arise.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .