We often read or see reports about Court cases where people are complaining that an offender should have received a longer gaol term, or should not have had the term suspended.
So often, what is not asked is the simple question: "Why?"
If the State is going to keep people in gaol, there needs to be a reason. It must be done to achieve a purpose for society.
It is often said that penalties need to be increased to reduce the incidence of crime. In fact, there is little evidence that increased penalties for crimes reduce their frequency. People in Britain still used to steal when the penalty was transportation to Australia - and that was long before this country was the destination of choice for British migrants!
Countries with much lower penalties for many crimes often have no greater crime rate than those with much higher penalties.
One often misquoted example is Singapore. Here in Australia there seems to be a view that penalties there are harsher, but that it not the case for many serious crimes. Assault for example has a maximum penalty of three months in Singapore, but in South Australia it is 2 years, or 3 years if aggravated, or 4 years if a weapon is used. And that is for assaults that cause no harm - if harm is caused, then the penalties go up even further.
Whether there is any benefit in putting someone in gaol has been the subject of some work in Britain:
Jail is no place for the average prisoner - Times Online
All it seems to lead to is a higher crime rate, lack of rehabilitation, and an increasing cost to the Government of keeping people there.
So often, what is not asked is the simple question: "Why?"
If the State is going to keep people in gaol, there needs to be a reason. It must be done to achieve a purpose for society.
It is often said that penalties need to be increased to reduce the incidence of crime. In fact, there is little evidence that increased penalties for crimes reduce their frequency. People in Britain still used to steal when the penalty was transportation to Australia - and that was long before this country was the destination of choice for British migrants!
Countries with much lower penalties for many crimes often have no greater crime rate than those with much higher penalties.
One often misquoted example is Singapore. Here in Australia there seems to be a view that penalties there are harsher, but that it not the case for many serious crimes. Assault for example has a maximum penalty of three months in Singapore, but in South Australia it is 2 years, or 3 years if aggravated, or 4 years if a weapon is used. And that is for assaults that cause no harm - if harm is caused, then the penalties go up even further.
Whether there is any benefit in putting someone in gaol has been the subject of some work in Britain:
Jail is no place for the average prisoner - Times Online
Louis Blom-Cooper, an icon in his own right at the Bar, has chosen to place his latest book. Launched last week, its central thesis is that 60 per cent of the prison population should not be there. The QC describes imprisonment as "an instrument of man's control over his fellow creatures" which has existed since historical records began. Its role as the "State's prime weapon of penal sanction for serious crime", is, he argues, more recent.So why do we keep doing it? Increased penalties have done nothing to stop the so-called "Gang of 49."
All it seems to lead to is a higher crime rate, lack of rehabilitation, and an increasing cost to the Government of keeping people there.
