Victoria is internationally renowned for its enlightened approach to law and order issues, and helping to keep young people out of prison is a key part of overall crime prevention and community safety strategies. An intervention at an earlier stage has been proven to save a life time of institutionalisation – and a taxpayer funded scholarship to crime school.

No one can reasonably argue violent criminals should be ushered through the justice system without being held accountable for their actions - and nor does Jesuit Social Services. However, what is also clear is that the 'one size fits all' approach does not work. Under current laws, the judiciary has the ability to hand out a harsh sentence if the situation requires – just as it has the ability to take into consideration circumstances of the defendant along with the seriousness of the crime. Taking this flexibility away is as a backwards step.

Youth justice is currently surfacing as a priority issue across Australia. The Northern Territory Court is undertaking a review into youth justice – in the Territory, Indigenous people account for 90 per cent of those in prison.

Despite having about a third of the nation's population, New South Wales has half of its prison population and a prison rate double that of Victoria. For those espousing the effectiveness of detention as a means of reducing crime, these statistics suggest that NSW should have a much lower crime rate than Victoria. Far from it – according to the Crime and Justice Reform Committee, there are almost twice as many adults in prison in NSW as there are in Victoria and the crime rates are no different.

The Baillieu Government has spent its first six months coming up with a standard answer to a range of diverse issues – name a problem and the answer is more police or more jails. This is a worrying trend both for those interested in improving civic behavior as well those concerned with the good use of taxpayer funding.

Judges, not politicians, should be setting sentences. When you are unwell you go and see a doctor, when your car breaks down you go to a mechanic and when you want legal advice you go to a lawyer. On none of these occasions does the thought cross your mind that the most appropriate thing to do is get some advice from your local politician. It makes more sense to go to experts trained in the appropriate field. And yet it is politicians who think that they are the best placed to tie the hands of the justice system and make laws relating to sentencing.

The Attorney General's statement on the Government's new mandatory sentencing law proposal is that the new law will apply except in circumstances ''so unusual ... that Parliament could not have intended those circumstances to be covered'' is a clear and profound admission that the parliament does not have the tools to be able to set sentences – to put it bluntly they are inserting their own get out of jail clause.

What is also of concern is that the Government's justification for the hard line approach is coming from what they say the electorate is demanding – being hard on the crime "that is causing so much distress, so much anxiety in the community". However, what we see from the electorate when they are presented with the fuller picture is something very different – the Tasmanian Jury Sentencing Study found that from a survey of jurors, 90 per cent agreed the judge's sentence was very or fairly appropriate, with more than half of those surveyed leaning towards greater leniency than the judge's sentence.

The Attorney-General, Robert Clarke, was reported recently as saying, "if offenders are off the streets, behind bars or in detention, they can't be out there reoffending and re-inflicting... gross violence". But where is the evidence to support this thesis? Study after study provides evidence that this approach just does not work.

We know that a) typically two out of every three young people who have been in custody re-offend, b) over 80 per cent of young people involved in a youth Group Conference program have not reoffended two years after, and c) given that for every individual not in custody that's a saving of about $88,000 per person per year in detention costs – the smart money is on preventative and diversionary programs.

Jesuit Social Services has been working with young people in the youth justice sector for nearly 35 years with governments of both political persuasions. We run programs aimed at preventing reoffending and diverting young people from the justice system. Programs such as intensive case management for young people on community based supervision orders and group conferencing have delivered results in both getting young people on the right track and reducing crime. The success of these programs are not just rhetoric, they are based on serious evidence.

Being tough to reduce crime overlooks many facts and a lot of evidence – not least of which is the fundamental truth that prisoners eventually return to society.

Victoria'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.

Crime Prevention and diversion of young offenders from the Justice System means wasting less on being tough on crime.

Julie Edwards
Chief Executive Officer
Jesuit Social Services