Page 280 - Week 01 - Thursday, 11 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
full-time detention is appropriate only as a last resort. Offenders will ultimately be released back into the community at some point and are faced with challenges in reintegrating.
It is therefore in the interests of the whole community that those offenders who have a prospect of reformation should be provided with a real and effective opportunity for change through a community-based sentence, where appropriate to do so. If successful, the offender benefits by being provided with therapeutic and rehabilitative support to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. There can also be benefit to victims of knowing that the offender has accepted personal responsibility and is working to change their behaviour while still being subject to an appropriate penalty for their offending. And of course there are benefits to the broader community in reduced recidivism rates.
The new intensive correction order introduced by this bill has been created to provide a modern and progressive alternative to full-time detention. It is designed as a direct alternative to a jail sentence. Indeed, a sentencing court is required to decide that a sentence of imprisonment is the only appropriate penalty before considering whether to allow an offender to serve that sentence in the community. As such, it is a sentence of last resort, just short of full-time detention.
The intensive correction order provides the court with an opportunity to support the best interests of the community and the offender by providing the court with the ability to take a multifaceted approach to creating a sentence which is able to serve a number of the different purposes of sentencing. The intensive correction order does this by requiring every offender who receives such an order to be under the supervision of ACT Corrective Services and also to be subject to a set of strict conditions. Further conditions may be added for specific purposes such as rehabilitation. It is up to the offender, ultimately, to comply with these conditions. It is a requirement of the legislation that the sentencing court makes it clear to the offender what their obligations will be if an order is made, and the offender must consent to the intensive correction order being made. This ensures acceptance of personal responsibility by the offender, which is important for the order to succeed.
There are a number of other prerequisites that must be met before a sentencing court may impose an intensive correction order. One such prerequisite is the length of the sentence of imprisonment. An intensive correction order may only be made where the appropriate sentence of imprisonment does not exceed two years. A four-year sentence may be the subject of an intensive correction order only where the sentencing court considers it appropriate when taking into account the factors of harm, risk and offender culpability. This requirement ensures that the most serious offences, or combination of offences, are not eligible for an intensive correction order while providing the ability, in limited circumstances, to impose a longer order than would usually be the case where it is appropriate after careful consideration.
A sentencing court must have regard to any pre-sentence report and to a specific intensive correction order assessment prepared by ACT Corrective Services. The intensive correction assessment must address the suitability of the offender for an order with reference to drug and alcohol dependence, medical conditions, criminal
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video