Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4726 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

on which the courts operate; it ignores the fact that the courts have discretion in these matters and will make the decisions. I have to say that the government considers strongly that the approach taken by the committee to develop a regime of serious criminal offences with suitable penalties has been far more rigorous than the ad hoc approach to law reform adopted by Mr Stefaniak in relation to this issue by saying, "Oh, well, that's the penalty in New South Wales; we'll just bung that on here."

There are some examples that we might turn to. In fact, Ms Dundas turns to the situation that Mr Stefaniak would create in relation to incest. There is another example, I think, that really does need to be made in relation to law reform of this order. Mr Stefaniak proposes that a person who inflicts grievous bodily harm on another person with the intent to engage in sexual intercourse with that person in the company of others, often referred to as sexual assault in the first degree, would be guilty of an offence which carries the same penalty as murder-life imprisonment. Mr Stefaniak proposes to increase the penalty for sexual intercourse without consent in the company of others to life imprisonment, the ultimate penalty in Australia, the same as the penalty that applies to murder.

Every criminologist that you care to talk about in relation to an approach such as that-to the imposition of the death penalty-will say to you: you are essentially inviting a criminal of that order, if they really are tough and unrepentant and beyond hope, to not just rape or sexually assault that person in company but, having regard to the penalty that you seek to impose, to kill. That is what they will tell you. If the penalty for rape is the same as the penalty for murder, criminologists will tell you, some criminals will take that extra step. They will undertake the rape, they will commit the rape and they will say, "Well, what's the penalty for what I've just done? The penalty's life imprisonment, no remission, you're done."Those unrepentant criminals-and we do have people of such appalling standard, we do have some people beyond hope; we all know that-are absolutely beastly people within our communities and they do commit these most horrendous crimes.

Here we have an approach to law and order that looks good, looks tough; it's easy; "I'm tough; I'm tough on crime; I know how you deal with these issues; you just ramp up all the penalties."Here we have currently as a maximum penalty for rape of this order 20 years imprisonment. "I'll show how tough I am; I'll bung it up to life imprisonment,"without any regard for what those that study issues around criminology, criminality and sentencing will tell you: one of the potential implications of imposing a penalty of life imprisonment for rape will be that some rapists will take the view that they have nothing to lose; they have now committed an offence that calls for life imprisonment.

The only other offence that calls for that penalty is murder. They will take the odds to it, so as to, in their own thinking, seek to avoid, through the death of the victim, exposure or arrest.

Mr Stefaniak: Come on!

MR STANHOPE: You may think it is extreme. I make the point that that is what criminologists will tell you. Yet, with this sort of quick, flash, "I'm tough on crime", knee-jerk, lazy approach to law making here, you end up with those sorts of results.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .