It can be tempting to propose simplistic solutions to complex problems, particularly when seeking to woo worried voters. In promising to introduce mandatory minimum prison sentences for violent criminals who reoffend, Victorian Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has fallen victim to this temptation.
The Age believes policies to protect the community should be based on evidence. Seeking to politically capitalise on safety fears by adopting the hackneyed mantra of "tough on crime" does not meet this tenet.
![Matthew Guy is wrong on crime.](/web/20170424115208im_/http://www.theage.com.au/content/dam/images/g/t/n/p/0/s/image.related.articleLeadwide.620x349.gvivrb.png/1491945761594.jpg)
Countless studies have indicated mandatory sentencing rarely causes a decline in crime, and has even been associated with increases. Almost a decade ago, for example, a report by the Sentencing Advisory Council noted that studies throughout the world had found no correlation between the severity of punishment and levels of offending.
Another rationale for Mr Guy's policy is that it would reduce crime by taking offenders off the streets. But there is no evidence mandatory sentencing would remove criminals from the streets any more effectively than allowing the judiciary to do its expert work on a case-by-case basis.
Judges should be allowed sufficient flexibility to deliver rulings and sentences that strike a balance between punishment and deterrence on the one hand, and fairness (to victims and perpetrators), community safety and the possibility of rehabilitation on the other.
Some sentences may be too lenient, but mandatory sentencing is an unjustifiable restriction imposed on the judiciary by expedient politicians. Mr Guy's "two strikes" proposal applies to 11 crimes including murder, rape, aggravated carjacking and aggravated burglary.
We of course believe lawmakers, as our elected representatives, have a role in helping set sentencing guidelines, but that it is the role of the judiciary to apply the law.
The current chairman of the Sentencing Advisory Council, Professor Arie Frieburg, says: "The vast majority of the legal profession – the solicitors, the bar, the judiciary, academics, certainly the Sentencing Advisory Council – have indicated that mandatory sentencing is not an effective response to crime."
Mr Guy, though, says he is "not overly concerned" by "sections of the judiciary who think they know better than the rest of us". That is a curious attitude to say the least.
We believe Mr Guy's policy is one-dimensional, when a multi-pronged strategy is required. Professor Frieburg makes the pivotal point that mandatory sentencing does not deal with the underlying causes of crime, and potentially creates injustice by applying the same response to situations that can be different.
Again, the problem is complex. Disadvantage, for example, is a key element. Half the prison population comes from only 6 per cent of Victoria's postcodes.
Three-quarters of the prison population have a substance-abuse problem. Ninety-nine per cent of people in prison will one day be released; rehabilitation has an important role.
The Age welcomed reforms introduced last June, following recommendations by the Sentencing Advisory Council, which was asked to provide advice by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeal.
The court had found in 2015 that Victoria's baseline sentencing laws – created by the previous Coalition government – were incapable of being given any "practical operation".
The reforms, among other things, produced tougher penalties for child-sex criminals. Sentences are at least 40 per cent of the maximum jail term for serious offences. This approach responds to community concerns that sentencing might be too lenient in some cases, but retains and respects the judiciary's vital independence.
- A note from the editor – to have Age editor Alex Lavelle's exclusive weekly newsletter delivered to your inbox sign up here: www.theage.com.au/editornote
0 comments
New User? Sign up