By Mia Schlicht

Australia’s imprisonment rate has increased sharply in the last four decades and governments are spending increasing amounts of taxpayer funds on maintaining overburdened prison systems.

The author argues that Australia's over-reliance on incarceration, particularly for non-violent offenders, is not only financially unsustainable but also fails to effectively address crime and often perpetuates a cycle of recidivism. The essay advocates for a shift in focus towards alternative sentencing options, such as electronic incarceration, offender-employment programs, and youth rehabilitation ranches, coupled with increased investment in proactive policing and community-based initiatives.

Key recommendations

• Reverse the bureaucratisation of police forces, focusing police efforts on law and order, and redirecting savings from reduced incarceration of non-violent offenders.

• Implement electronic incarceration for non-violent crimes, using technology to monitor and restrict the movements of offenders, allowing them to continue working and contributing to society.

• Non-violent offenders should be given the opportunity to work for willing businesses, earning award wages and contributing to society while providing restitution to victims.

• Require offenders to pay a significant portion of their income as tax until the total amount wrongfully obtained is repaid threefold – with one-third going to the victim and two-thirds to the state.

• Establish youth rehabilitation ranches to provide education, skills training, and support for young offenders.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2024. 64p.

By Mirko Bagaric

The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) has taken a lead role in providing empirically-grounded reform proposals for the criminal justice system, with a strong focus on reducing incarceration numbers. The report released in 2017, titled Australia’s Criminal Justice Costs: An International Comparison noted that ‘despite spending more than most countries [on prisons] and more and more each year, our results are poor and people don’t feel safe’.

In recent years, this problem has become more acute. Prison rates have continued to increase, with an enormous amount of public money being spent on prisons and no improvement in community safety.

Over the past two decades the United States – known in criminology circles as the ‘mass incarcerator’ – has made significant progress in reducing the incarceration of low-risk, non-violent offenders. This has reduced the overall incarceration rate which delivers a dividend to taxpayers through less spending on prisons, some of which can be re-invested to strengthen the policing of violent and sexual offences to improve community safety. Additionally, reducing unnecessary rates of incarceration allows more Americans to be productive members of society, through working, paying taxes, and supporting their families and local communities.

The adage applied by reformers predominately from deep-red conservative states such as Georgia and Texas was ‘jail is for people we are afraid of, not those we are mad at.’ This recognises the unique nature of prison and that it should be reserved for people who are a threat to community safety. For those who are not a threat to safety, but who have nonetheless broken the law and ought to be punished, alternatives to prison should be pursued.

Australia, however, is lagging behind the world-leading reforms undertaken in the United States, and across many parts of Europe and Scandinavia over the past two decades.

The criminal justice system has a number of stages, including investigation, arrest, trial and conviction or acquittal and then the imposition of sanctions against offenders. This last stage, sentencing, is arguably the most important aspect of the system: the sanctions available against offenders target the most cherished and coveted individual interests, including the right to liberty. Moreover, mistakes at the sentencing stage of the process threaten to undermine the integrity of the entire criminal justice system. If, for example, murderers habitually received only small fines or shoplifters were sentenced to life imprisonment, this would seriously undermine the efficacy of the entire criminal justice process. This report focuses on reforms to the sentencing system. This system is fundamentally broken in Australia. There is no tenable rationale that can justify the jarring reality that Australia’s imprisonment rate has increased three-fold over the past three decades, making Australia one of the most punitive developed nations on earth.

The most pressing and important issue relating to sentencing law and practice is its continued disregard of expert knowledge and empirical evidence. Sentencing is the institution where there is the greatest gap between practice and knowledge. Most other social institutions and areas of learning, such as medicine, engineering and education, readily embrace and change their practices in response to new learning that demonstrates more efficient and effective ways of achieving desirable outcomes. By contrast, the key sentencing policies and practices which are responsible for the incarceration crisis have been implemented and maintained despite extensive research which demonstrates that the system is flawed.

Empirical evidence highlights that key sentencing objectives that have been invoked to justify heavier penalties, such as marginal general deterrence and specific deterrence, are unattainable, yet they remain central goals of Australian sentencing system.

This report examines the gulf between sentencing knowledge and practice, and makes recommendations regarding the measures that need to be undertaken to bridge that gap, so that law-makers can bring sentencing practice in line with current knowledge and make it fairer and more efficient. If the proposals in this report are adopted, the incarceration rate could be reduced by up to 30%, far less tax-payer dollars will be spent on prisons and the community will be safer.

The election of the Albanese Federal Government and increased focus on problems with the sentencing system provides a window in which the community and law-makers are receptive to evidence-based reforms to sentencing. To take advantage of this opportunity, it is necessary understand the flaws of the current system and the barriers to implementing progressive reforms and provide coherent evidence-based reform proposals.

The reform proposals in this report will make changes to the sentencing system which will secure the following four objectives:

1. Reducing crime;

2. Punishing criminals appropriately;

3. Minimising the cost of the system; and

4. Ensuring that the system does not violate important moral norms.

In order to improve the sentencing system, it is necessary to reassess the current aims of sentencing; give content to the principle of proportionality; harmonise aggravating and mitigating considerations, establish standard penalties for key offence types and introduce new criminal sanctions. This matters are now discussed below, after examining the failings of the current system.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2022. 24p.

Written by: Mirko Bagaric and Morgan Begg

Australia is experiencing both an incarceration crisis and an unprecedented worker shortage. Sensible criminal justice reform can address the excessive burden on Australia’s prison system while also filling persistent job vacancies in the economy.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are currently close to 450,000 jobs vacancies across the economy, which is double the number of job vacancies prior to covid-19. And close to one in four businesses have stated they cannot find the workers they need.

In terms of incarceration, Australia’s incarceration rate has increased by 240 per cent since the mid-1980s. This is three times our population growth rate. This is much higher than other commonwealth countries with similar legal systems, such as Britain and Canada, and more than double European countries such as Germany, The Netherlands, and Sweden.

The total cost to the Australian taxpayer of imprisoning roughly 42,000 prisoners is now nearly $4.5 billion annually. Over-incarceration imposes an additional cost on Australians by depriving our labour force of healthy, working age men and women who could otherwise be productive members of society.

Approximately 42 per cent of prisoners have not committed sexual or violent offences. Not imprisoning these low-risk non-violent offenders would support, and most likely enhance, their rehabilitation. It has been firmly established that many employers are prepared to employ people who have prior convictions for non-violent and non-sexual offences, and when they do employ such people they are invariably pleased with their decision.

If Australian governments reformed sentencing so that non-violent low-risk offenders were not detained at taxpayer expense, but rather were put to work in industries which urgently need workers, this could deliver substantial benefits to taxpayers without compromising community safety.

If this reform had been implemented in 2021-22 as many as 14,000 young and healthy adults could have been added to the workforce, which would have improved government budgets by $1.95 billion in reduced incarceration costs and increased income tax revenue. If this reform had been implemented between 2016-17 and 2021-22, total budgetary savings would have been in the order of $10.4 billion in reduced incarceration costs for state governments and additional income tax revenue for the federal government.

Diverting low-risk non-violent offenders from prison and giving them the opportunity to work would enhance their lives and prospects, promote community safety, improve the economy through increased productivity, and reduce net government spending and debt.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2023. 20p.

By Catherine Flynn and Kathryn Gor

This report presents the findings of consultations held with affected children aged between 11 and 15 years old who have a parent in prison. It highlights the lack of research and policy attention given to this disadvantaged group and seeks to contribute to a stronger evidence base for future policy decisions by sharing their experiences.

An estimated 40,000 children in Australia have a parent in prison on any given day. Despite this, only three studies have heard directly from children of prisoners in the past decade and Australia currently has no guidelines around supporting children during the time of parental arrest.

Findings

1. Children largely rely on informal family supports, but there are frequently limitations on support available.

2. Teachers have the potential to be strong supporters of children who experience parental imprisonment, but need improved knowledge and skills.

3. Adults in the justice system are largely absent from children’s view.

4. The normal activities and experiences of childhood remain important to children when they have a parent in prison.

5. Children desire respect for their privacy.

6. Children want their own needs and rights to be recognised and responded to.

Melbourne: Monash University 2024. 53p.

By Hilde Tubex, John Rynne and Harry Blagg

This article reports on research undertaken in Western Australia and the Northern Territory to develop effective throughcare strategies for Indigenous people leaving prison. The findings are based on interviews with Indigenous men and women in communities, with and without lived experience of prison, and local service providers. The interviews demonstrate that a thorough exit plan from prison is essential. However, for throughcare strategies to be effective, they should acknowledge the context of Indigenous involvement in the criminal justice system and the ongoing consequences of colonisation. The paper discusses the main areas that need to be addressed during imprisonment and after release, which form the basis of recommendations. Effective throughcare strategies must involve Indigenous people and the broader community, to break the cycle of offending and reoffending and address the over-representation of Indigenous people in prison. 

Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice no. 585. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. 2020. 14p.

By Tim Causer and Philip Schiofield

The present edition of Panopticon versus New South Wales and other writings on Australia consists of fragmentary comments headed ‘New Wales’, dating from 1791; a compilation of material sent to William Wilberforce in August 1802; three ‘Letters to Lord Pelham’ and ‘A Plea for the Constitution’, written in 1802–3; and ‘Colonization Company Proposal’, written in August 1831. Of this material, Bentham printed and published the first two ‘Letters to Lord Pelham’ and ‘A Plea for the Constitution’, but the remainder is published here for the first time. These writings, with the exception of ‘Colonization Company Proposal’, are intimately linked with Bentham’s panopticon penitentiary scheme, which he regarded as an immeasurably superior alternative to criminal transportation, the prison hulks, and English gaols in terms of its effectiveness in achieving the ends of punishment. He argued, moreover, that there was no adequate legal basis for the authority exercised by the Governor of New South Wales. In contrast to his opposition to New South Wales, Bentham later composed ‘Colonization Company Proposal’ in support of a scheme proposed by the National Colonization Society to establish a colony of free settlers in southern Australia. He advocated the ‘vicinity-maximizing principle’, whereby plots of land would be sold in an orderly fashion radiating from the main settlement, and suggested that, within a few years, the government of the colony should be transformed into a representative democracy.

London: UCL Press, 2022. 619p.