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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (26 November) . . Page.. 4728 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

that I read about just today that had been passed in a jurisdiction in the United States of America requiring every household to own a gun to protect them against burglars.

Mr Stefaniak: Come on!

MR STANHOPE: I am not joking. This is similar to that. In a town in the United States there is a law requiring every household to have a gun. It is the same mentality as this-allowing householders to set traps in their homes to deter potential trespassers or burglars.

This is the sort of law and order included in Mr Stefaniak's approach to these serious issues: you should reintroduce provisions that allow the setting of traps. [Extension of time granted.] We should, in Canberra, what we regard as a civilised society, allow the setting of traps or devices guaranteed to endanger human life or to cause grievous bodily harm or danger to health, safety or physical wellbeing as a response to burglary. I think that is heinous. I think that is outrageous. It is outrageous that the Liberal Party would condone, would encourage the setting of man-traps-that is what they used to be regarded as-as a means of deterring property crime or burglaries.

The criminal law proceeds on the basis that we must always-I would have thought humanity and civilisation proceeded on the same basis-hold human life, welfare and safety above all else, certainly above all of our property and all of our possessions. But that is not the view of the Liberal Party. Protect your property at the cost perhaps of somebody else's life or welfare. That is what this is about. That is the provision. That is what Mr Stefaniak proposes, and I think it is simply outrageous that, in our civilised community, we would be legislating to introduce so-called man-traps as a legitimate device to protect our property against burglars or thieves.

The fourth part of Mr Stefaniak's package of reforms proposes, amongst other things, the repeal of section 345 of the Crimes Act which currently provides that a court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on any person unless the court, after having considered all other available penalties, is satisfied that no other penalty is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. These statutory provisions recognise a well-established common law principle and are consistent with Australia's human rights obligations and the government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody.

I have concerns about the impact of imprisonment on offenders, particularly young offenders. They are more likely to learn about crime whilst in custody and less likely to address their offending behaviour. The government believes that the court should have regard to the full range of sentencing options available at the time of sentencing and doesn't support the repeal of the section.

Mr Stefaniak also makes generalisations about the sincerity of any offender's remorse when making the case for the removal of this from the list of factors that the court should have regard to in sentencing, pursuant to section 342 of the Crimes Act. I consider-and I think most of us would consider-that the question of whether an offender's remorse is genuine or not is one of those issues that should be left to the court. Why would you wish to remove from the court the discretion or the capacity to make a judgment about whether or not an offender is genuine in the remorse they show?

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