Page 922 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 20 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Sometimes it is said that, because one jurisdiction has a higher maximum penalty for a certain crime than another, legislative change is needed. The difference in maximum sentence is said to be evidence that a jurisdiction is not taking crime seriously and is letting offenders off lightly. It is said that sentencing practice is out of touch with community standards and views.
The point I would like to make is that we should not be so quick to automatically assume that the other jurisdiction has it right. What the recent evidence from New South Wales confirms is that it is wrong to assume that increasing maximum penalties will send a greater signal to offenders and have a greater deterrence effect.
One recent example was the changes to the maximum sentence available for culpable driving in the ACT. As members will recall, the Assembly agreed to more than double the maximum available sentence from seven to 15 years. Part of the rationale for the change was a spreadsheet which showed that some states did indeed have higher maximum penalties.
What the Greens say is that that is a simplistic approach that risks copying the approach interstate without seeing what impact it will actually have. I recall the Attorney-General being questioned about this point on ABC radio at the time the government’s bill was announced. When pushed to explain the rationale for the proposed changes, the attorney admitted that at the heart of it the amendments were about punishment and retribution and not about deterring crime. And that was the crux of the issue: the attorney knew that the changes would do nothing to deter crime and make the streets safer. It was all about punishment and retribution. I think the community would have a different view about punishment for punishment’s sake if it is known and shown to have no impact on crime in the future.
There is an interesting debate to be had about the purposes of sentencing and exactly what the purpose is of punishing offenders. Some would argue that punishment is for punishment’s sake and that it is an end in itself. Others would argue that the only point in punishing is to deter the offender from repeating the crime in the future and to also deter the community more generally. What the attorney was focusing on was the notion that punishment exists as the end goal, with no link to deterrence. I think it would have been better if the attorney had been up-front about that and not waited until being pushed on that particular point on live radio.
Another area where the Assembly has legislated is on liquor reforms, which were designed to combat alcohol-related crime and violence. I am pleased to say that I think this was a much more carefully thought through process, one which is based in evidence and one which will deliver improvements on the ground. When looking at the problem of alcohol-related crime and violence, one solution sometimes put forward is to simply get tougher on the offenders. The argument is put that offenders get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist when they are caught being violent and that the answer is to set stiffer penalties for offenders. That could have been one path to go down. We could have doubled the penalties for assault and causing grievous bodily harm and doubled the fine for being drunk and disorderly. We could have said that that was our response to alcohol-related crime and left it at that. Fortunately, the government embarked on a more holistic approach to the problem.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video