After a tragic event such as Bourke Street, there are understandably calls for reforms to prevent a similar event occurring. When the stakes are high, such as in relation to a possible terrorist attack or mass murder, there is an acceptance that all preventive measures should be taken.
But where should resources for preventing violence be directed and who should be targeted?
The federal government has spent well over $10 billion in the past decade on domestic counter-terrorism measures. At the same time, expenditure on mental health and other services in the community has failed to keep up with demand.
It is difficult to assess the effectiveness of counter-terrorism measures. Perhaps foiling just one terrorist attack justifies the costs. On the other hand, risk analyst Professor Mark Stewart has estimated that Australians have less than a one in 8 million chance of being killed in a terrorist attack.
Australians remain more likely to be injured or killed by someone they know than by a stranger. The Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence found that support services, police and the courts were overwhelmed by the number of reported family violence incidents. The annual homicide rate across Australia remains comparatively low at about 1.7 victims per 100,000 people, but a high proportion of these deaths are caused by intimate partners.
Last year, the Victorian government dedicated more than half a billion dollars to combat family and domestic violence over two years. Such targeted resources are clearly justified. What more needs to be done?
Detention, supervision and compulsory treatment are now accepted as necessary for managing those who are feared to be at risk of harming others.
Under mental health legislation, individuals with severe mental health problems may be subject to compulsory detention and treatment. Suspected terrorists may be detained without charge for the purposes of gathering intelligence. Certain offenders may be subject to continued post-sentence detention or supervision.
All these measures are costly. The Victorian prison system itself costs more than $1 billion a year to operate, with record numbers incarcerated.
There is also the question as to who should be targeted for intervention. Unfortunately, there is no single factor that can predict violent behaviour. Certain risk factors have been identified, with substance abuse indicative of a significantly increased risk. However, risk assessment is not an exact science because usually a combination of factors are associated with a high risk of offending.
Those who commit violent crimes are often young men with a history of disadvantage in childhood, problematic behaviour in adolescence, substance abuse, unemployment, and a disorganised lifestyle. The Victorian Ombudsman's report on the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners found that the "average" prisoner did not complete high school, was unemployed and had a history of substance abuse. Despite socio-economic factors, whenever a mass killing occurs, many presume that the person must be either "mad" or "bad". There have been recent calls for an "assertive model" of compulsory treatment for those with severe mental health problems as a means of preventing violence.
Compulsory treatment makes building a therapeutic relationship difficult, it takes resources away from voluntary care and the association between violence and certain forms of severe mental health problems remains unclear. Some studies indicate that violence may be associated with 10 to 15 per cent of those diagnosed with schizophrenia. This is a very small number. About 0.5 per cent of Australians, around 115,000 people, have some form of psychotic disorder, just under half of which is diagnosed as schizophrenia.
A completely safe society remains elusive. While risk assessment techniques are constantly developing, it is impossible to predict the precise risk one person poses to the community. Risk assessments can classify an individual within a group as at high, medium or low risk of violence, but cannot say whether that person will be one of the group who will offend or one of the group who will not.
Increasing expenditure on counter-terrorism and preventive detention may provide a sense of security. However, crime and safety indices indicate that it is those countries with low rates of social disadvantage, rather than high incarceration rates, that have reduced crime the most.
What makes for safer societies? The answer seems to be providing affordable housing, education and employment opportunities, plus adequately funded and co-ordinated services that target substance abuse and mental health problems.
Bernadette McSherry is professor of law and director, Melbourne Social Equity Institute, University of Melbourne
0 comments
New User? Sign up