Page 4129 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
A second practicable example of where evidence would be valuable is in purpose No 2 of the sentencing act, which is to prevent crime by deterring the offender and other people from committing the same or similar offences. Part of the rationale behind the current raft of sentencing bills is that we need to send a clear message to would-be offenders. The message is that you should not commit the crime because we do not accept crime and we will lock you up for longer.
At the outset it is important to state what the ACT government guide to framing offences has to say on this issue. I quote from the government guide to framing offences:
Despite popular perception, research suggests that increasing penalties does not act as a significant deterrent or prevent crime. Strategies that look at reducing the incidence of crime (such as targeted education and awareness raising) and improving detection, arrest and prosecution of offenders are generally more effective.
So in light of that quite definitive statement the Greens are concerned to ensure we investigate just exactly what effect will be achieved by increasing sentences and ensure we are being smart on crime. If the aim of the bills is to send a clear message to offenders and reduce the rate of offending, then we may need the review to look more closely into the issue and give us some evidence on whether that will work or not.
I would like to reflect on some recent media reports that 30 per cent of drink drivers in the ACT are repeat offenders. If the review were to confirm these statistics that would show that the current sentences being imposed are not acting as a deterrent. However, we would advocate for the review to look more closely at the options in addition to simply increasing the maximum sentences.
Other jurisdictions do empower the courts with other sentencing options in relation to drink drivers. We would like to see the evidence of how effective they have been and whether it has been found that is more effective in deterring repeat offenders for drink driving than seems to be the case in the ACT at the moment. In a similar vein, the government’s guide to framing offences makes clear that increasing the chances of apprehension and conviction are a greater deterrent than increasing the maximum potential sentence.
Mechanisms to increase apprehension and conviction would involve greater investment in our police force and perhaps the DPP. The review may show that if it came down to a choice to spending money either on prisons—locking people up for longer—or spending more money employing police, the money may be best spent on the police.
I would like to respond to some of the comments of the Attorney-General that have been made in the media in response to our suggestion for a review. The attorney has said publicly that sentencing in the ACT was reviewed in 2004 and that he does not think another review is necessary at this stage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video