Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

A couple of sentencing decisions in the news recently have attracted a lot of public attention. Many people are calling for longer sentences in general, and for mandatory minimum sentences. Very few of these people are actually able to articulate why they would be a positive.

At the time of writing, 89% of people responding to the AdelaideNow Poll support mandatory sentences for Aggravated Cause Death by Dangerous Driving cases. The comments on the story in question follow similar themes - a couple are reproduced verbatim here:

"Crime i sgetting worse and worse and yet these criminals are getting such pathetic sentences"

"lock these criminals up for a lengthy term, show them we will not tolerate it anymore, before things get even worse."

Many of them talk about the fact that the victim was a "good" man - and there is absolutely no doubt that he was, but is that something that should play a role in sentencing? Maybe that is a whole topic in itself.

I want the Government to work at reducing crime.

Increased penalties only serve to appease a public baying for blood. They do not reduce crime. The penalty for stealing used to be transportation to Australia, and it did not stop crime - and that is long before Australia was the migration destination of choice for Brits!

I am told Denis Hood is a reasonably intelligent man, and therefore one would assume that he has read all of the research on the topic of "general deterrence." If he has, then the only motive for this must be political.

That's not putting the Family First.

Christmas Greeting From a Law Firm

From us ("the wishors") to you ("hereinafter called the wishee"):

Please accept without obligation, explicit or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, politically correct, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion or secular practice of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions.

Please also accept, under aforesaid waiver of obligation on your part, our best wishes for a financially successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of this calendar year of the Common Era, but with due respect for the calendars of all cultures or sects, and for the race, creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of computer platform or dietary preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting you acknowledge that:

• This greeting is subject to further clarification or withdrawal at the wishor's discretion.
  
• This greeting is freely transferable provided that no alteration shall be made to the original greeting and that the proprietary rights of the wishor are acknowledged.
  
• This greeting implies no warranty on the part of the wishors to fulfill these wishes, nor any ability of the wishors to do so, merely a beneficent hope on the part of the wishors that they in fact occur.
  

This greeting may not be enforceable in certain jurisdictions and/or the restrictions herein may not be binding upon certain wishees in certain jurisdictions and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wishors.

This greeting is warranted to perform as reasonably may be expected within the usual application of good tidings, for a period of one year or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first.

The wishor warrants this greeting only for the limited replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wishor.

Any references in this greeting to "the Lord", "Father Christmas", "Our Saviour", or any other festive figures, whether actual or fictitious, dead or alive, shall not imply any endorsement by or from them in respect of this greeting, and all proprietary rights in any referenced third party names and images are hereby acknowledged.

Ben Cousins is Innocent

At least for the moment.

Whilst no-one can deny that there is a problem with drugs in the AFL, it seems that Ben Cousins seems to be getting a pretty raw deal. Pulled over by the Police, and then arrested while the TV cameras film it all! Normally when someone is arrested, the TV stations pixellate their faces so as not to prejudice a fair trial. (In Cousins' case, they might have needed to pixellate the stomach too!)

Not only that, but he then faces sanctions from his club, before the case has been through the Court process.

Perhaps there have been some amendments to the law so that the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence no longer apply to AFL players.

Meanwhile, all the attention gets focussed on Ben Cousins, rather than the wider problem - just a bit too convenient for the AFL!

"Rehabilitation has failed," they cry

With the media reporting a number of very nasty crimes over the last week, there are increasingly vocal advocates of harsher penalties, so called "three strikes" policies, and dumping any focus on rehabilitation.

You only need to follow the comments on AdelaideNow, run by "The Advertiser," to see the depth of the feelings this issue is producing.

Those who claim that rehabilitation has failed ignore the fact that rehabilitation has never really been tried in a properly funded way. They also ignore the fact that harsh punishments have been tried for centuries and have failed. Hanging did not prevent murders, and people still stole loaves of bread in England when the penalty was transportation to Australia!

Those who would like to see the "Gang of 49" locked up need to think about this; at $65,000 per prisoner, per annum, locking up 49 people will cost us - the taxpayers of SA - nearly $3.2 million EVERY YEAR, for as long as we keep them locked up.

As an added problem, little rehabilitation occurs in gaol, so those people are still likely to offend when released.

Rehabilitation is not about a bag of lollies and a pat on the head, it is about fixing the problems that lead people to offend.

A long time between posts

As those of you who listen to me on 5AA on Wednesdays would be aware, I have been quite ill lately, and this blog was one of the first things to suffer.

Now that I am recovering, although not back to work, the rants should start again.

Stay tuned, and thanks to all of you who sent me messages of support.

Who watches the Watch-house?

We have such a problem with overcrowding in prisons, that remand prisoners are now being held in the City Watch-house. This is a facility designed to hold people only for short terms, following their arrest, and until they go to Court.

People held there do not get family visits, and often the time they need them most is when they are first remanded in custody. For a while, it was even difficult for them to get a visit with a lawyer, but that problem seems to have been fixed after I contacted the Minister for Correctional Services, Carmel Zollo, and her staff fixed the problem fairly quickly.

A number of my clients have described their feelings of isolation and helplessness, while held here. The continued imprisonment of the innocent in these harsh conditions must stop.

System at Breaking Point

Today's Advertiser article about the deplorable situation at Pt Augusta Prosecution highlights the problems with under-funding of prosecuting authorities in SA.

Leaving aside the transfers, if 2 out of 6 staff are on stress leave, then something is very wrong. Imagine if one third of your company's workers were on stress leave - wouldn't that set off some alarm bells?

Quick action is needed, or the system will grind to a halt.