Page 3959 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 12 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
now dealing with a situation where they have to dole out bigger sentences. This means that while the South Australian court system has a very sophisticated and nuanced set of approaches to offenders, it is creating more expense for the government as people need to go from the district and magistrates courts to supreme courts because more offences are now regarded as criminal offences. It will be interesting to evaluate the tough on crime approach, but it is probably not going to reduce crime in that state, and it is going to cost the government more.
We need to identify the causes of criminal behaviour and seek to address and remove those causes. This is not, as some critics would assert, a sign of weakness, and it does not condone antisocial behaviour. Rather, it is the application of empathy and compassion to recognise and solve social problems—using the offences as a chance to intervene in a person’s life in a way that will help them find and strengthen the parts of themselves that will be much more able to deal with our society, without crossing the line.
If we continue to ignore the causes or engines of criminality, why should we expect that exacting harsh punishments on symptomatic behaviour is going to protect us in future? The circle sentencing program is obviously not going to address all these issues on its own but, from the evidence that I have seen, it results in low risk recidivism rates, and that makes it worth investing more resources and research into the program. It is an expensive process initially, but I am told that it is probably going to be a lot cheaper in the long run.
Reintegrative techniques address the victim’s needs for justice to be seen to be done and for an acknowledgment of their personal suffering. They should be extended to adult offenders where appropriate. I urge the government and JACS to take a long-term view of the economics here. Yes, the process is expensive to run and is resource intensive, but low rates of re-offending save public money in the long run, and there is a hidden benefit in social cohesion and all that entails—like better parenting outcomes, less property damage, less self-harm and fewer offences against the person. The list goes on.
It will not solve all problems and it will not guarantee that a person will not commit further offences, but on the results we have got so far, and in comparison with the alternatives, circle sentencing is a winner. I am glad that this legislation will strengthen judicial recognition of the process.
All courts need a contempt power to control proceedings. It is a testament to the capacity and judgment of magistrates and judges that contempt powers are used so rarely. I am sure there must be a temptation to use them more frequently. On the whole, the judiciary have proven by past practice that they can be trusted with these powers. In fact, I believe that they could have gone a little bit further.
Proposed sections 99A (3) and 307 (4) of the respective acts provide that a contempt power can be exercised only when there is no other effective way to enforce an order or undertaking. Mr Stefaniak identified potential problems with similar wording in the ACT’s anti-terrorism act, and there is the potential for similar problems to occur here. One can never exhaust all the alternative, possibly effective, ways to enforce an order or undertaking; so it is always arguable that other alternative methods should be tried,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .