Community supervision alternative to prison now in effect

bikhet said :

Charlotte Harper said :

But they have plenty of prison cells since the AMC expansion came online, @HenryBG. Also, how does it lead to criminal victimisation?

I think that what HBG means is victimisation BY criminals rather than victimisation OF criminals.

As with most such ideas, as with puddings, the proof will be in the eating. If this proposal achieves its aims then all well and good.

There is, though, a real risk that it will result in criminals being released into the community to continue their lives of crime. I’d prefer that a review of the scheme be mandated after a fixed period of time, and that the scheme be canned if the claimed benefits can’t be shown.

Yes it is apparent that this is about prison overcrowding issues and cost cutting, despite being couched in terms of giving the judiciary more ‘options.’
The purpose of prison is (a) to remove criminals from the wider community (community safety), and (b) rehabilitate the prisoner while he or she is ‘a captive audience’ so they are better equipped to live a law abiding life after release.
Though the latter is often badly stymied by lengthy Court waiting times (which prevent a lot of prisoners doing programs because they are still technically ‘innocent’ while on remand or with an appeal on foot) and the usual lack of resources for prison rehabilitative programs.
But those things are not an excuse to farm out prison sentences onto the prisoner’s family. This kind of sentence places the family in an impossible situation, as they are supposed to be both ‘supportive’ and ‘supervise them and dob them in’ if required, putting themselves in a position where they can be blamed by both the authorities and the criminal.
It would be far better to fix entrenched Court delays – so the person can clearly connect the punishment with their actions – and have a greater range of programs available within the prison.

Charlotte Harper said :

But they have plenty of prison cells since the AMC expansion came online, @HenryBG. Also, how does it lead to criminal victimisation?

I think that what HBG means is victimisation BY criminals rather than victimisation OF criminals.

As with most such ideas, as with puddings, the proof will be in the eating. If this proposal achieves its aims then all well and good.

There is, though, a real risk that it will result in criminals being released into the community to continue their lives of crime. I’d prefer that a review of the scheme be mandated after a fixed period of time, and that the scheme be canned if the claimed benefits can’t be shown.

The threat of sentencing to Tuggeranong may be an effective deterrent.

One of the many benefits of keeping criminals in gaol is that is reduces the overall fertility rate of the criminal class, which in turn reduces the extent of multigenerational disadvantage.

This initiative is a half-baked response to two things:
– lack of prison cells
– over-spending on prisoners

Cost-cutting such as this leads unerringly to otherwise avoidable criminal victimisation.

This article would have more credibility if it was released on 1st April.
It’s similar to that other bit of failed corrective engineering called “diversionary sentencing” (or something like that).

Aw – Shane Rattenbury chose the door colour did he? : )