'Get tough on crime' is a game of one-upmanship that state politicians play during election campaigns. In the lead up to this year's March election in NSW, Coalition leader Barry O'Farrell announced a 'blitz on crime', committing a Coalition government to the recruitment of 550 new police officers. This was in response to Labor's Kristina Keneally, whose promises included a $60 million law enforcement package.
It was a similar story in Victoria before November's state election, with Labor's John Brumby and Coalition leader Ted Bailleau both attempting to demonstrate toughness.
Now that the elections have been won and lost, both new governments are seeking to follow through on their election pledges. What is remarkable is the different approaches to what constitutes getting tough on crime. As mentioned, NSW believes police numbers is the answer. The Victorian Government, on the other hand, plans legislation to ensure more offenders are jailed.
To that end, the state's Attorney-General Robert Clark recently asked Victoria's Sentencing Advisory Council to look into minimum jail terms for teenagers convicted of violent crime. Meanwhile his NSW counterpart Greg Smith has vowed to reform the state's prison system by cutting what is Australia's largest prison population.
NSW is looking at Victoria's current relatively low rate of incarceration as a model. Victoria is seeking to adopt NSW attitudes from the era when, according to Smith, former premier Nathan Rees thought it was a 'badge of honour' to have 10,000 people in the jails.
Jesuit Social Services CEO Julie Edwards has spearheaded an innovative approach to protecting young offenders at risk. She has criticised Victoria's indiscriminate 'one size fits all' approach to sentencing and suggested the state's Attorney General should 'look north of the border as the new Liberal Government looks to reduce Australia's largest jail population by diverting offenders away from the prison system and reducing the rate of re-offending'.
Under the current Victorian law, the judiciary has the ability to hand out a harsh sentence if the situation requires. She argues that taking this flexibility away by fixing sentences in law is a backwards step. 'Judges, not politicians, should be setting sentences. When you are unwell you go and see a doctor… [not] your local politician.'
Edwards also points out that the idea that the electorate wants harsh treatment for offenders is a furphy. She cites the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study, which found that from a survey of jurors, 90 per cent agreed the judge's sentence