Mr BAILEY - 1999-04-27
Last week, the Chief Minister told this Assembly that mandatory sentencing was not put in place to reduce crime. Could you please expand on your observation?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I wouldn’t have thought there was anything to expand on. If you refer to the second reading speech that I gave in this House as the Attorney-General at the time, from my recollection, it referred particularly to that situation. That is that mandatory sentencing was designed to fix the pendulum. It was designed to punish offenders. It was designed to punish offenders so that the victims, who are not getting adequate compensation and plain justice in this government’s opinion through the court, would have that delivered through legislation which imposed that mandatory sentencing on those people who broke into people’s homes, abused their property and all those sorts of things which are an abuse of people’s personal treasures. That was the reason mandatory sentencing was brought in - to punish offenders.
Now, if it has a peripheral effect of reducing crime, well and good. But don’t ever be mistaken that this government set out to reduce crime...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: … by introducing mandatory sentencing. We introduced mandatory sentencing to punish offenders, and in due course, if the level of crime is reduced, that will be a secondary benefit.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, I wouldn’t have thought there was anything to expand on. If you refer to the second reading speech that I gave in this House as the Attorney-General at the time, from my recollection, it referred particularly to that situation. That is that mandatory sentencing was designed to fix the pendulum. It was designed to punish offenders. It was designed to punish offenders so that the victims, who are not getting adequate compensation and plain justice in this government’s opinion through the court, would have that delivered through legislation which imposed that mandatory sentencing on those people who broke into people’s homes, abused their property and all those sorts of things which are an abuse of people’s personal treasures. That was the reason mandatory sentencing was brought in - to punish offenders.
Now, if it has a peripheral effect of reducing crime, well and good. But don’t ever be mistaken that this government set out to reduce crime...
Members interjecting.
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Mr BURKE: … by introducing mandatory sentencing. We introduced mandatory sentencing to punish offenders, and in due course, if the level of crime is reduced, that will be a secondary benefit.
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016