By Mia Schlicht

Australia’s imprisonment rate has increased sharply in the last four decades. In 1975, there were 8,900 people in prisons across Australia – there are now over 40,500. The number of prisoners has increased by 355 per cent despite the population of Australia increasing by just 86 per cent. This has resulted in an incarceration rate of 205 per 100,000 of the adult population which places Australia as one of the fastest growing incarcerators in the world amongst other OECD countries.

Of these 40,500 prisoners, 38 per cent have been imprisoned for non-violent offences. Alternative justice measures such as electronic monitoring, home detention, fines, tax penalties, restitution orders and other such measures may be preferable. These alternatives would better realise the interests of those who suffer the most from crimes, the victims, who have vocalised their discontent with the tough-on-crime rhetoric in Australia that has led to an over-reliance on incarceration as a form of justice.The crime landscape across Australia has seen a change in recent years. Offender rates have declined along with the number of victims of crime. Despite this notable shift, sentencing reform has not responded. Of those fewer non-violent offenders, more are being imprisoned for short lengths of time which is contributing to Australia’s high reoffence rate. More than 60 per cent of Australia’s prison population has been previously incarcerated which is one of the highest reoffending rates in the world. Over a third of convicted prisoners in 2021-22 received a prison sentence of less than six months. Short and frequent sentences are associated with high recidivism rates and 66 per cent of these short sentences are served by non-violent offenders.

Criminal behaviour must be punished. However, a distinction needs to be made between those we are afraid of and those we are mad at. For those who are low risk offenders, alternative justice measures should be imposed to punish behaviour whilst also incentivising criminals to make better decisions and foster their rehabilitation with the community.

This paper presents the case for reform to Australia’s incarceration policies by presenting the costs of the criminal justice system in Australia; investigating who is in the system and why; analysing the reasons behind the changing crime scene; and suggesting directions toward an improved system.

This paper finds that the policy surrounding incarceration has not changed for a long time despite obvious changes in the nature of offending and criminal behaviour. Prisons are being used for broader purposes than necessary. Of the aims of the criminal justice system – public safety, deterrence, retribution, and restitution – only public safety through incapacitation can uniquely be achieved by prison. Where public safety is not a concern, alternative methods should be introduced.

Melbourne: Institute of Public Affairs, 2023. 40p.

By Britt Skaathun ,Francesca Maviglia,Anh Vo,Allison McBride,Sarah Seymour,Sebastian Mendez,Gregg Gonsalves,Leo Beletsky

Policing, corrections, and other carceral institutions are under scrutiny for driving health harms, while receiving disproportionate resources at the expense of prevention and other services. Amidst renewed interest in structural determinants of health, roles of race and class in shaping government investment priorities are poorly understood.

Methods: Based on the Social Conflict Model, we assessed relationships between city racial/ economic profiles measured by the Index of Concentration at the Extremes (ICE) and budgetary priorities measured by the novel Carceral Resource Index (CRI), contrasting investments in carceral systems with funding for health and social support across the 50 most populous cities in the United States (U.S.). Bivariate correlations, and unadjusted and adjusted polynomial regression models were used to assess the relationship between budgetary investments and population concentration at extremes in terms of income, racial/ethnic composition, and education, controlling for other demographic characteristics.

Results: In our sample, median CRI was -0.59 (IQR -0.64, -0.45), with only seven cities exhibiting positive CRI values. This indicates that most large U.S. cities spend more on carceral systems than on health and supportive services, combined. Adjusted polynomial models showed a convex relationship between the CRI and ICE-Education, and ICE-Race(White vs. Black)+Income, with quadratic terms that were positive and significant at p<0.05. After controlling for age, the strongest prioritization of carceral systems was observed in cities where the proportion of low-income Black residents approached or exceeded that of high-income white residents.

Conclusions: Municipal prioritization of carceral investments over health and social support is pervasive in the U.S and exacerbated by racial and economic disparities. The CRI offers new opportunities to understand the role of government investments as a structural determinant of health and safety. Longitudinal research is warranted to examine the relationship between budget priorities, structural racism, and health outcomes.

PLOS ONE 17(12): 2022.