*Pic: Attorney-General Vanessa Goodwin
As the new Liberal State Government ponders how to implement the “tough on crime” policies in its election manifesto, Premier Will Hodgman and Attorney-General Dr Vanessa Goodwin may do well to consider the comments ( End Mass Incarceration Now, HERE ) from the Editorial Board of The New York Times (NYT).
The Liberals said they would introduce mandatory detention and get rid of suspended sentences in Tasmania, among other measures.
Basically, the NYT says a similar 40-year “experiment” in the US – locking people up and throwing away the key – has failed. It has failed on economic and social terms. That is, a senseless “tough on crime” policy has cost US taxpayers much more than the police/prison system should or could, and it has destroyed communities, particularly parts of the black community in the US.
Civil Liberties Australia will write this month to all Members of the Tasmanian Parliament with facts about the Tasmanian system in a briefing paper (see below). CLA’s analysis of University of Tasmania and other data and research shows that wholesale implementing of the Liberal Government’s policies taken to the recent election would be counter-productive for the people of this state. Just in financial terms, proposed “tough on crime” measures are likely to cost Tasmanian taxpayers an extra $20 million a year for no perceivable gain to the state.
CLA believes the State Government should undertake a proper consultation process before implementing new policies that work better, and cost less.
Download TASMANIAN GOVERNMENT SENTENCING POLICIES. A fact sheet prepared by Civil Liberties Australia, May 2014:
CLA_fact_sheet_on_Tasmanian_Government_Sentencing_Policy.docx
• Vanessa Goodwin: Getting Tough on Crime
IN OTHER TASMANIAN NEWS (from The Examiner):
• Zero interest in state’s energy market
• Board costs soar to $10m a year
• Peter MacKenzie, in Comments: We have (or it might be had) a program that reduced recidivism from over 60% to %3. According to Cassy O’Connor, that program has had its federal funding axed in amongst many other programs that were effective. I don’t have current hard data, but can say that for every dozen non-recidivists, we are likely saving in excess of $1m per annum in prison costs. But critically, that also means at least potentially a dozen less victims (assuming the crimes are not “victimless”), and a whole lot of police and court resources not tied up, etc. And of course at least some recidivists will be involved in more than one crime on release. This program funding cut is not a saving and will only result in cost-transference and delayed (lagged) costs.
