Page 5353 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions about the Tasmanian research that the ACT Chief Justice subsequently emailed to all members. This is the type of research that we believe would add value to this debate and would help the Assembly make a better decision about community standards and community expectations. This morning the attorney again stood up and said that the community expects the penalty to fit the crime. I imagine that Mrs Dunne is going to make similar comments. What is that based on? Is that based on a couple of emails that have been received? Is it a couple of letters to the editor? Is that an honest and accurate measure of community expectations? That is the question that I think members need to reflect on as they stand here and say, “These reflect community standards.” I am not really sure.
That Tasmanian research underlines that. I would like to think that members have taken the time to look at it carefully and will recall that in broad terms, where jurors were surveyed on the penalties that were handed down by a judge—these are juries who have sat through the entire case and listened to the evidence—about half thought the judge was too lenient and about half thought the judge was too harsh. It suggests that judges in that Tasmanian study were coming down somewhere that, on the spectrum of community expectations, was probably about in the middle.
There will always be people who expect more. But there will be people who think that the circumstances of the case do not warrant such a tough penalty. It is too easy to jump on one side of that story or the other. Our responsibility is to take a more cool-headed approach when measuring what we believe the community standards and expectations are.
The second flaw that I particularly focus on with this bill is the JACS Guide for framing offences. I have quoted that in this place a number of times. It essentially refers to the fact that increasing penalties does not act as a significant deterrent to prevent crime and highlights the fact that efforts to improve the detection, arrest and prosecution of offenders are generally more effective. When we last debated this, the attorney said that this guide applies only to strict liability offences. But, as I explained under standing order 46 during that last debate, a reading of the guide certainly suggests otherwise.
What the guide tells us is that investment in better policing and better prosecution to increase the chance of apprehension and conviction is what really acts as a deterrent, whereas what we are seeing here, in the kind of bills that are being brought forward, is really an end of pipe solution. It is that classic situation. In the environmental field, you have the discussion about whether it is better to fine somebody for polluting the environment or to put a system in place that prevents the pollution from ever getting out there. The thinking around the criminal justice system is quite analogous. It is far better to see the crime not take place in the first place, particularly when it comes to something as horrendous as deaths arising from culpable driving. There are far more effective strategies that this Assembly should be looking at and spending its time on than simply saying that we need to toughen up the penalties and that will really make a difference.
The third flaw that I particularly want to focus on in this bill and its government equivalent is the idea that we are repeating law and order campaigns from other states.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video