The threat of modern terrorism challenges the traditional notion of law – to serve as a punishment for wrongdoing. Deterrence is not enough. Extremists willing to resort to violence have proved willing to act without any concern for the consequences to their person.
The goal must instead be to prevent terrorist attacks, not merely punish those responsible for an atrocity. A law against suicide bombing, for instance, is not going to stop people determined to attack others by killing themselves. But for a nation such as Australia – rightfully proud of the tradition to protect the rights of individuals against potential abuse by state authority – there is no easy balance between prevention and punishment. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull describes the security environment as "ever-evolving", as demonstrated by the cruel ingenuity shown by terrorists to imagine new and devastating methods of attack. Driving a speeding truck into a crowd on a French promenade is a recent horrific example.
More News Videos
- Video duration
- 02:16
Terror threat is evolving: Turnbull
- Video duration
- 02:11
Lindt siege police response in question
- Video duration
- 01:53
Norman May remembered at SCG tribute
- Video duration
- 01:38
Australia's most dangerous road in Melbourne
- Video duration
- 01:46
Victoria's youth crime out of control
- Video duration
- 01:35
CCTV shows brutality of Prahran bashing to court
- Video duration
- 01:17
Bike helmet research debunks 'junk science'
- Video duration
- 01:09
The Abbott popularity problem
Terror threat is evolving: Turnbull
The Government's first order of business will be introducing new terror laws keeping high risk terrorists imprisoned indefinitely. Courtesy ABC News 24.
Australia has adopted a number of measures in the past 15 years, granting police and security agencies extraordinary, sweeping powers to investigate and pre-empt terrorist plots. Such powers have been exercised in most instances responsibly and with restraint. But the potential for abuse of powers that impinge on individual liberty cannot be lightly dismissed. The burden of proof must be kept high, to prevent a situation where security is unduly used as an excuse to trample the rights of individuals. As The Age observed in 2014, when concern about attacks in Australia inspired by Islamic State began to grow, "suspicion is a potent emotion, but it must be tempered by evidence".
Now the government has proposed a law that would allow the indefinite incarceration of people convicted of terrorist-related offences, what Mr Turnbull calls "post-sentence preventative detention legislation". He compares the proposal to arrangements in some Australian states for the treatment of sex offenders or extremely violent people, where a court may order continued imprisonment for high-risk prisoners. "We cannot afford for a moment to be complacent," he said of the terrorist threat.
The sentiment is sound, but there is reason for caution. Our cherished freedoms will only continue to be meaningful if protected, otherwise the only winners are those who would sow fear and division. The basis of our criminal justice is that a person must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, with the corollary notion that a person serves time to pay their debt to society.
It is rare for the key to be thrown away. For terrorism-related offences in a disrupted plot, the sentence may be comparatively short for the mayhem imagined – hence the fear of recidivist behaviour. The government intends to have a system of "preventative detention" overseen by a judge, and only applied to those determined by a medical and psychological assessment not to have been rehabilitated during a penal sentence.
But this presents the potential for a person to be judged a threat long after their original sentence has expired, on grounds that might otherwise be considered flimsy reasons for imprisonment. The perception of prejudice could fuel anger against a system that in most instances values fairness and transparency.
Labor has warily accepted the need for change, but said a careful approach is necessary. An assessment of whether the change is required, or can be accommodated within existing legal process, should be part of that approach. Changing the law, with the potential unintended consequences, should not become a substitute for proper application of existing powers.
0 comments
New User? Sign up