By Petro Georgiou Tuesday 29 February 2000 We are a nation that celebrates its commitment to justice, equality, freedom and tolerance. Yet we are also a nation in which a child can be imprisoned for stealing a toy, breaking a window or riding as a passenger in a stolen vehicle. In 1997, the Northern Territory Government introduced a mandatory sentencing regime for most property offences. That regime replaced judicial discretion in the sentencing of juveniles. It demands, for example, that a child aged 15 or 16 convicted of theft for a second time must be incarcerated for 28 days - regardless of the value of the item stolen. A 17-year-old must be incarcerated for two weeks for a first offence, three months for the second and a year for the third. There can be no appeal. Confronted with national concern over this legal regime, NT politicians have admonished the rest of Australia for criticising their legislation. Derided as southern do-gooders from leafy suburban electorates, critics of mandatory sentencing are told they do not understand the law-and-order crisis in the Territory, which necessitates locking up children. The NT introduced mandatory sentencing after considerable hype over rising property crime. But the official data cast doubt on the very basis of those concerns. Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Criminology figures show that, between 1995 and 1997, property offences in the Territory declined. Unlawful entry into dwellings fell by 17per cent, while motor vehicle theft and unarmed robbery dropped by 19 and 20per cent, respectively. Property offences in the NT were comparable with national averages. In some categories - such as robbery and motor vehicle theft - NT offence rates were below those in many other jurisdictions. So the rationale for introducing severe laws to combat property crime was questionable. And the arguments supporting their retention are similarly flawed. We are told that mandatory sentencing acts as a deterrent. And yet, since its introduction, property crime has increased. The 1998-99 annual report of the NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services points to an increase in motor vehicle theft, in unlawful entry and in general theft since the introduction of mandatory sentencing. In Alice Springs, unlawful entry and criminal property damage have risen by 20per cent since mandatory sentencing started. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there has been an increase in the NT prisoner population of 42per cent since the introduction of mandatory sentencing. We are told by representatives of the NT Government that mandatory sentencing is not just designed to deter - it also aims to punish, and punish harshly. But what type of society have we become when we respond to minor juvenile crime with a policy based primarily on vengeance? We are told the NT regime punishes only a small group of hardened offenders who are beyond assistance or rehabilitation. Yet the findings of a Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report paint a very different and disturbing picture. The commission identifies cases of young people in the NT sentenced to jail for minor offences. It tells, for example, of two 17-year-old girls with no prior convictions jailed for two weeks for stealing clothes from roommates. It tells of a 15-year-old boy who broke a window after hearing of the suicide of a close friend. Mandatorily sentenced to 28 days, he tried to commit suicide. These are not the stories of children beyond rehabilitation or assistance. Rather, these are stories of children struggling with difficulties that many adolescent Australians experience. As John Tippett, president of the NT Law Society, explains: "The sort of behavior that once upon a time was regarded as pretty much part of the human process, the sorts of mistakes that people would once take into account as a momentary failure, the sorts of things that you might not give a great deal of consideration to in the ordinary living of life, in the NT can put you in prison." We are told that, in the NT, the mandatory sentencing regime applies equally to everyone. It does not. Although it looks neutral, in practice the Territory regime results in "indirect" discrimination against indigenous Australians. The majority of those incarcerated for minor property offences are indigenous. A range of socio-economic circumstances and difficulties ensures that mandatory sentencing has a disproportionate impact on indigenous Australians. Remarkably, property offences in the NT, such as fraud and white-collar crime, which have high levels of non-indigenous offenders, are exempt from mandatory sentencing. Because they have not been educated about mandatory sentencing, and because of difficulties with English, many remote indigenous communities are uninformed about the severe consequences of committing minor property offences. Without an interpreter, many children from these communities will understand neither the sentencing process nor the reason for their incarceration. When interned a considerable distance from their families, the dislocation indigenous children experience can have tragic consequences. We are told the mandatory sentencing legislation was necessary because the courts in the NT were too lenient. But I find it hard to believe that allowing a court to take into account the personal circumstances of a child who has stolen an apple amounts to going soft on crime. The NT mandatory sentencing laws are cruel and inappropriate in a nation where the justice system is largely predicated on the ability of the courts to hand down a punishment that fits both the crime and the criminal. Gordon Renouf, director of the North Australian Aboriginal Aid Service, explains that young indigenous people in the Territory are finding themselves in jail for the most minor of infractions, such as the theft of a bottle of spring water. "Not all the offences affected by mandatory sentencing are trivial," says Renouf, but "the non-trivial offences would in many cases have received a jail term anyway. The effect of mandatory sentencing is to make the offenders involved in trivial offences go to jail." In 1997, I refused to support federal legislation to override the NT's voluntary euthanasia law. I have no axe to grind against the NT. But it is unacceptable that any Australian child should be automatically incarcerated for minor property crime. The fate of such children, harshly and arbitrarily punished under an Australian judicial system, undermines our commitment to a society built on the principles of equity and justice. Petro Georgiou is the federal Liberal member for Kooyong. E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
