Time to end rampant 'penal populism', MPs warned
By Paola Totaro, State Political Editor
January 27 2003
A group of international crime experts has called for an end to the use of
law and order as a "political shuttlecock", proposing reforms to safeguard
the legal system from electioneering politicians.
The criminologists, from Canada, Britain, the United States and Australia,
have studied sentencing in five countries over the past decade, finding
that all have introduced severe and costly new punishments reflecting
influential public opinion polls and community-driven politics.
The study, which included New Zealand, acknowledges that public cynicism
about criminal justice is justified but concludes that this has very little
to do with leniency.
"These problems have less to do with leniency per se than with reductions
in the probability that offenders will be apprehended and punished, delays
in imposing punishment, sentencing disparity and a lack of responsiveness
to the needs of the victim," it says.
The authors, Professor Julian Roberts of Ottawa University in Canada,
Professor Mike Hough of Southbank University in London, Professor Loretta
Stalans of Loyola University, Chicago, and Dr David Indermaur of the
University of Western Australia, document how rising crime rates - or
perceptions of crime - have increasingly thrust law and order and
sentencing on to the political stage.
They argue that oversimplifications and distortions by the media and the
interplay between politicians and voters has created "penal populism" which
sparks knee-jerk policies and, finally, bad law in virtually all jurisdictions.
The authors also argue for creation of an international movement, seeking
support from across the political divide, to help counterbalance and oppose
populist responses.
Their work will be available in Australia next month in Penal Populism and
Public Opinion: lessons from five countries (Oxford University Press, rrp
$125).
The concluding chapter proposes innovative reforms to "put the brakes" on
penal populism throughout the Western world.
These include:
Creation of "justice institutes" comprising non-partisan criminal justice
and legal experts - none associated with local political or court systems -
to evaluate advice on crime and justice and the cost of reforms. Each
institute would act as a policy "buffer" but would need funding free of
political pressure.
Establishment of an independent crime information and prevention agency to
look at new and current crime prevention methods, distribute information on
sentencing trends, and assess proposed reforms.
Sticking to "best practice" in public opinion polls.
Creation of information systems to summarise sentencing patterns and
better explain the "going rate" for crimes. The authors note that in all
five countries it is easy to find statistics on the proportion of convicted
offenders who go to prison but nearly impossible to assess the actual risk
of imprisonment.
Forcing politicians to explain the funding for their sentencing reforms;
for example, vetoing the use of crime prevention budgets for prison
construction.
Dr Indermaur says Australia is a prime example of "penal populism", with
both major parties at the state level trying to outbid each other in the
"get tough on crime" stakes.
Mandatory sentencing in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, and
now promised in the lead-up to the NSW poll, were examples.
Dr Indermaur also suggests that the seeds of the law-and-order auction were
probably sewn in NSW in the 1988 state election campaign, which saw the
Liberals begin a punishment "bidding war" by promising to introduce "truth
in sentencing legislation".
The study says politicisation of law and order has also had a profound
effect on the traditional separation of powers between the Parliament, the
executive and the judiciary. "... [that] hallmark of the Westminster system
of government ... appeared to be breaking down at the close of the century
in Australia."
http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/26/1043533952907.html