No they are not completely separate. The issue with people like Bayley is that many believe the courts are handing repeat violent offenders lenient sentences. MS takes away the courts discretion to even consider the bulltish excuses lawyers throw out for these criminals. If for example the MS for raping a teenage girl was a minimum 10 years then I guess Bayley wouldn’t have been out to rape another 6 women after serving only 22 months of a 5 year sentence. Even if he simply waited longer to re-offend then surely some form of MS for repeated rape would have seen Bayley serving far more than the 7 years he got for 6 rapes. Thats the issue that MS addresses not just some notion that its going to prevent all crimes. MS is designed to reduce the courts discretion to hand down lenient sentences & to put these scumbags away for longer. Specifically the proposed changes by the state Libs would have seen Bayley sentenced to far far more on his second offence (which was his 7th rape conviction). AGAIN he only served less than 8 years for 6 rapes. Try making a case that supports the notion that Bayley serving 10-20 years more for his crimes before Jill Meagher is a bad thing.
Does MS reduce the discretion of parole boards to make decisions and parole these cretins when they have only served a pittance of their sentence? If so then count me on board.
I don’t think it necessarily would have an effect on the parole board but surely if nothing else it would increase the time between being convicted of a violent crime and facing the parole board.
I agree that there are many who seem to not get long enough, or any at all when they seem to clearly deserve one etc, and I’ve personally always thought 10 15, or even 20 years is hardly worthy of the term “Life Sentence” for example.
I’ve often wondered how many kill and take the punt on doing as little as 10, max 20, thinking that’s quite worth the risk, … Life should mean fking life.
But, again, MS has nothing to do with length of sentence. that’s a very separate issue.
Ah, maybe you simply don’t understand what is being proposed. MS is absolutely about length of sentence & in the case of what is being proposed by the Vic Libs, its about ensuring that repeat violent offenders receive longer mandatory sentences. Currently if you are before the courts for your 2nd,5th or 100th aggravated home invasion then the court can & sometimes does impose sentences that many consider lenient. Under the Libs plan this repeat offender would face a minimum of 10 years in jail. See the connection, 10 years mandatory sentence as opposed to the judge having the discretion to impose far lighter punishment. MS is about length of sentence far more than its about crime prevention - people want criminals punished & repeat offenders in particular kept away from the public.
You can legislate that, without having one size fits all no extenuating circumstances hands tied regardless sentences,
Oh, … and again, … it’s been proven over and over again to not reduce crime, and in fact (again) the last time it was implemented here in our own state, crime skyrocketed,
JICYMI … IT DOES NOT WORK!
And I’m done .
ok, got around to reading what the libs are proposing. Only violent crimes while on bail.
Agree with Wims points then, its pretty hard to argue against that. I though it was a much broader proposal.
I think BSD your barking up the wrong tree, it wont be played as a crime prevention measure, more what JB is arguing its getting the worst of the worst off the streets. Even if you disagree its going to be hard to win that publicly.
Ah yeah you can legislate mandatory sentences - that’s what’s being proposed. You don’t understand it - that much is clear. Mandatory sentencing increases the penalties for repeat offenders - thats what its being proposed to do & that’s what it does. Have you even bothered to read what was proposed or done the usual - “its the Libs so it must be bad”. Its not about overall crime reduction its about reducing repeat offenders freedom. The public expectation is that repeat offenders need to be removed from access to victims & be punished in line with the severity of their crimes. To say it doesn’t wok is stupid because the standard you are applying is not its intention. If it doesn’t get repeat offenders locked up for longer then its failed, everything else is you simply not wanting to address the actual policy.
The answer is somewhere in-between. Maybe better guidelines for sentencing and parole.
Having no flexibility sounds too much like AFL tribunal/points system to me.
You can legislate larger sentences without making them Mandatory.
You don’t u/stand, clearly.
That does explain my confusion at some of Wims posts, … and if it’s Just about that,… it doesn’t actually sound like MS at all. I just heard the whining Lobster say Mandatory Sentencing, and thought ohh FFS, this again? Really?
Seems he’s more just used the term for it’s familiarity and impression on Joe Public.
At any rate, all I said is MS does not work, …and it doesn’t, that is proven,… and that Ferret face is resorting to good ol’ right wing L&O Dog whistle politics 101, … which it is.
You would hate to see something original, and perhaps some innovation from them, instead of trotting out that hackneyed chestnut, but it appears he has zero imagination or ideas,… and probably shows that they are pretty desperate.
I haven’t worked out what it is yet, but the way they ramped up “African Crime Gangs”, Everybody Panic!!, … “Melbourne is Unsafe” “Under Crime wave”, garbage, and wheeled Boneless & Hannibal out during their holidays,… along with Count Murdoch pushing the line so wholeheartedly,… they clearly want something big from Victoria, and are pulling out all the tricks to get it back in Lieberal clutches… 
JBomber and I do not agree on much at all when it comes to politics and most social issues, but while I am not a believer in mandatory sentencing, there is an issue for me with the “flexible” sentences that are given by judges and magistrates.
If we start from the premise that there is no excuse for any violent act, and I mean no excuse, then it should be mandatory that anyone who commits violence on any other person gets locked up. I have seen too many cases in the Magistrates Court where a woman is severely bashed bu her partner, who gets a bond or community service order and takes his partner home and bashes her again and again. We need to protect victims and society in general.
Unlike many of my socially progressive comrades, I believe in capital punishment and have no sympathy for the argument that we may execute an innocent person, as mistakes are made. Such is life, so if you murder, rape and abuse kids then you die.
I know that the legal system has made good progress in dealing with the so-called Apex Gang, and police smashed them and many were deported, and most of the rest have been rehabilitated or are on the right track, however there is no soft option when any person is prone to violence.
Ah again, legislating larger sentences for specific crimes makes them mandatory - thats the point. You still sticking with your default setting that MS has nothing to do with length of sentencing - how about you look at the Law Council’s own paper on the matter.
“Laws that specify a mandatory minimum sentence generally set a minimum or fixed penalty for an offence”. The growth of mandatory sentencing laws reflects a desire in some quarters for tougher
sentences and dissatisfaction with the traditional sentencing system where courts
have a broad discretion to deal with offenders."
Or maybe look at the comments of Matthew Guy “The population knows where I stand on sentencing”
Notice that in both cases they are speaking specifically about length of sentences NOT reducing crime rates. This is because again the proposal is about forcing the courts to impose sentences that reflect the public’s expectations for repeat violent offenders. Nobody has suggested a career criminal like Adrian Bayley would suddenly stop raping women if he knew getting caught would result in 15 years jail. The argument is that getting 15 years jail for each of the rapes he’d already been convicted of would have seen him in jail & unable to kill Jill Meagher. Again try to argue that’s a bad thing.
You claim that a “one size fits all” approach is wrong but that’s exactly what you are trying to do with this proposal. There simply is no evidence at all that this exact approach has not worked before as whats proposed is very different to the examples in places like the NT where the MS was targeted at 1st time property offences. This is for repeated violent offenders & its designed to ensure they are locked up for longer & therefore they can not re-offend for longer. Its not going to suddenly reduce crime rates & trying to focus on this standard is disingenuous at best.
Lastly your position, default as it is, completely ignores fact & reality. Claiming MS doesn’t work even if you only focus on crime rates is wrong. Its not & again was never meant to be a fix all for crime prevention but actual studies done have shown positive outcomes. In WA for example, mandatory sentences for assaulting police led to a 28% reduction in such assaults. Mandatory sentencing introduced in California, Michigan, Florida & Pennsylvania coincided with reductions in the crimes being targeted - these are real examples not the blanket default of the left you’ve swallowed. Even experts who oppose MS have conceded that there is no definitive answer to does it reduce crime with evidence & examples where crime has decreased as well as increased. The real answer is that the reasons for crime are wide & complex so the idea that MS could possibly address all these issues, even if that was its sole intention, is farcical. We currently have MS in place in other states for crimes like killing a police officer where a conviction attracts a mandatory life sentence. Now nobody is suggesting that this will somehow prevent criminals deciding to attack officers, particularly when confronted with being arrested but again the idea is that community expectation is that killing an officer should attract the maximum sentence. Its about punishment not prevention.
No. It doesn’t.
Legislating mandatory sentences makes them mandatory.
Other wise, there’s discretion… see the difference ?? 
Legislating a minimum sentence is mandatory sentencing. It doesn’t remove the court’s discretion to impose a larger sentence it removes their discretion to impose a sentence less than the legislated (see mandatory) amount. Your assertion that MS is somehow completely different to minimum sentences is wrong - the proposal seeks to apply minimum sentences for repeat violent offenders - that’s it in a nutshell.
Mandatory minimums is mandatory yes, you’ve got it, well done…
And it doesn’t work.
Neither does your logic.
Not my logic. Fact.
*See (and maybe read…) previous article, or any of a million on the subject via Google.
And while we’re on the subject, this makes good reading too…
When taking the hard line is the weak option
John Silvester
9-11 minutes
We all want to be popular, which is why I feel particularly blessed to be the subject of an unending torrent of affection in this newsroom.
Such as the welcome I receive on returning to Media House after a rare sojourn in the outside world. “Where the hell have you been?” an editor will ask (we have several, they breed like rabbits). "Can you file your bilge soon so we can turn it into English?’
I know this is just their way of saying, “We miss you and can’t wait to read this week’s quirky column”. Touching, really.
But for politicians, popularity is more than a warm and fuzzy feeling. It is the lifeblood of their chosen trade.
Why else would you kiss strange babies that may bring up their pureed-apple breakfast on your designer suit, or wear hi-vis vests that make you look like Mr Bean, if not to endear yourself to the people? Politicians are elected to reflect our views and not impose an order upon us – it is called democracy.
But democracy can’t be run like a beauty pageant – although sometimes it seems the biggest boobs tend to win in both contests. Elected representatives must develop policies that make sense to the voters or they will be out on their ears.
In state politics there is no bigger issue than law and order, and with an election next year there have already been hundreds of stories and millions of words devoted to government and opposition promises to curb crime.
Yet really, the positions of both sides can be summarised in just three words: “Lock 'em up.”
The government plans to increase police numbers by about 3000 while the opposition promises to introduce mandatory sentencing for repeat offenders in 11 crime categories.
Consider these facts. In 2006 we had 4000 prisoners, but 10 years later that number had increased by more than 65 per cent to 6500. That will grow to 8000 in the next few years, and with Opposition Leader Matthew Guy’s mandatory sentence proposals it will crack 10,000. That is a fivefold jump from 2001.
We are building the 1000-bed Ravenhall Prison at a cost of $670 million, and on these projections will have to build another. Right now our prisons are full and police watch-houses are packed.
In 2002, police staff numbers were about 12,500 but under Premier Daniel Andrews’ initiative will pass 20,000 by 2020 – a jump of 60 per cent. And the crime rate keeps rising.
We are heading down a track with a proven dead end. And we should know, as white settlement in Australia was designed to relieve pressure on overcrowded British jails. It didn’t work then and won’t work now.
In traditionally tough-talking Texas they have changed direction and invested in rehabilitation and mental health and addiction programs. The result has seen a drop in prison numbers, the closure of three jails and a reduced crime rate.
Yet here there is no appetite for such discussions.
So if Dangerous Dan and Tough-Guy Guy want to take off their shirts, Putin-style, and go down the hard line, let’s stop mucking around with water pistols and pull out the bazookas. If you want to go all John Wayne on us, why not embrace the Singapore Solution?
Recently, a senior Victorian police officer asked his Singaporean counterpart about their gun crimes. For a moment the Singapore policeman looked confused before asking his off-offsider when was the last such offence. The reply was “1990”. When the Australian asked the secret he was told, “We execute them”.
Singaporeans say our approach to illicit drugs (chase the suppliers while offering harm minimisation for users) is nuts. And the figures say they are right. We are seizing more drugs than ever, and yet drug abuse is worse than ever.
And it will get worse. Stand by for a flood of Chinese fentanyl, an opioid, that has devastated Canada, with more than 900 deaths last year in the province of British Columbia.
Forty years ago Singapore authorities tackled demand rather than supply, forcing users into mandatory (and uncompromising) rehabilitation. Code-named Ferret, users were put into centres that looked like prisons, forced to go cold turkey, given military-style training, work, and finally released to a job. The addiction rate halved.
“Compulsory rehabilitation of drug addicts is the key to any lasting attack on the problem,” the then Singapore Central Narcotics Bureau director Tony Poh told me inside one of six dedicated prisons (sorry, rehab centres).
“Too many law enforcement officers think that they can turn off the drug supply like a tap. If there is a demand there will always be a supply; the profits are too great.”
Clearly we will never embrace the Singapore method, but the facts are clear. We must find our own way to slow demand, which makes it so disappointing that both sides of politics are obsessed with finding a law enforcement solution that doesn’t exist.
Police say virtually all organised crime, most violent offences, and the majority of property crimes are drug related. The crime rate goes up because drug use continues to climb; yet we cling to the failed model like a drowning man to a sinking lifeboat.
Take the proposed safe injecting room in Richmond. Despite a coronial recommendation for a trial and the support of a number of experts, both Andrews and Guy immediately dismissed the idea. Why? Because it is not seen as tough.
The reality is that a large percentage of voters are frightened by the increasing crime rate and want lock 'em up laws. When I once advocated a broader approach, a reader wrote suggesting I was a “left-wing wanker”. Well, in fairness, he may be half right.
Governments are supposed to build stuff. Schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and parks – things that take more than one election cycle to complete. We know the Metro Rail Project will disrupt traffic for several years and accept it as the price that has to be paid. So why is law and order different?
The issue of drugs and related crime cannot be dealt with purely by arrests, conviction and punishment. We need both sides to stop this political arms race and look for long-term policies that punish criminals, rehabilitate drug addicts and slow the rate of new users.
Fact: If we do not deal with drug abuse the crime rate will climb.
Last week, this paper reported violent patients with ice-induced psychosis are being placed in medically induced comas and shoved into scarce intensive care beds on ventilators to protect staff from attacks. Meanwhile, we have 1000 Protective Service officers guarding near-empty railway stations for political rather than practical reasons.
That decision alone shows that rather than being strong, politicians on both sides are as weak as water.
People who cannot access mental health care commit thousands of crimes and dozens of murders. Every shift, police deal with people who need treatment, not punishment, which means cops can’t get on with their core duties. While the majority of people suffering mental illnesses do not commit crime, too many end up being processed within the criminal justice system.
But the votes are in more cops, not more rehabilitation or mental health care, no matter what the end result.
We have feel-good government ads shoved down our throats, but when was the last time you saw a drug ad that would act as a conversation starter at home? We have skin cancer campaigns, confronting road toll ads, Worksafe messages and anti-smoking programs, yet very little to deter illicit drug use.
There is a chronic lack of rehab beds, and yet both sides of politics will spend billions on new jails rather than invest a tiny percentage on getting users clean.
Forget the polls and the news cycle. We need to pause, kneel and drink deeply from the Fount of the Just. We need a 20-year commitment from both sides for a continuous public and schools education program funded directly from seized assets of crime.
The government appointment last week of former Police Association secretary Ron Iddles as an independent law and order watchdog is a welcome one, but does not go far enough. We need a panel to take a fresh look at all the issues to find some bipartisan consensus on what is a national crisis. I would suggest:
Jeff Kennett. A polarising, charismatic, eccentric figure who knows how to get things done. The fact the former Liberal premier organised former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard to replace him as beyondblue chair shows he can rise above party politics.
His decision to support a Richmond safe injecting room indicates he isn’t a prisoner of the law and order lobby. If Labor’s Andrews appointed Kennett, it would be hard for the Liberal Matthew Guy to sook.
Justice Paul Coghlan. This Supreme Court Justice and former Director of Public Prosecutions is practical and smart. A supporter of victim’s rights, he is aware of the legal logjams that gum the system and has the will to fix them. As the grandson of a Chinese opium dealer, he is no silver-spoon judge.
Jill Baker. Former Fairfax and News Limited editor whose career relied upon understanding the fears and aspirations of all Victorians.
They would not be able to find all the answers, but at least they would have the dash to ask the right questions. But will the politicians have the dash to look beyond tomorrow’s headlines?
Can you find me any other person who wants to argue that minimum sentencing & mandatory sentencing are somehow completely different & not related? Can you find me an example from anywhere at any time that introducing a minimum mandatory sentence for repeat violent offenders doesn’t result in repeat violent offenders relieving higher minimum sentences? Its your position, the fact that you don’t even understand it tells me you’re simply trying to trot out the default left position but are struggling to justify it. MS has worked in ensuring certain offenders receive the desired sentences. It has not worked as a cure for all crime & even though this is the standard you want to apply for its success, it is not the stated aim of the proposed plan.