Introduction
The purpose of deterrence in Australia is to make the consequences of criminal action unappealing to potential offenders. Deterrence can be viewed from two perspectives: general and specific. General demonstrates to the public the consequences of violating the law, while selective is directed at repeat criminals.
However, rehabilitation focuses on assisting ex-offenders in becoming law-abiding members of society by addressing the root cause of their misconduct and giving them a second chance. To address the underlying causes of criminal behavior, rehabilitation programs assist with therapy or counselling, combined with training or education. This paper examines the efficacy, pros, and cons of deterrence and rehabilitation techniques in the Australian criminal justice system.
Deterrence in Australia
Deterrence Support
In Australia, deterrence is supported through legislation and jail guidelines. Certain acts reinforce criminal sentencing; for example, in New South Wales, this is outlined in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, section 21A(2)(h). This Act promotes punishment disincentives by including a prejudicial intent enhancement in sentencing. Mason (2019) outlines, “– a biased motive on the part of an offender is an aggravating factor at sentencing” (p 51). This implies that if an offender is determined to be biased, they may get a heavier penalty, which deters others from committing similar crimes; deterrence is achieved by establishing harsher penalties.
In Victoria, the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) outlines the sentencing goals and variables to consider (Livings, 2020). South Australia also has the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988, which supports crime deterrence in Australia. Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act (1988) section 39 (a) allows the release of a criminal on bond or promise “to be of good behavior and comply with the conditions in the bond” (p 70). These circumstances have the potential to deter future illegal actions in Australia.
Deterrence Evaluation
The purpose of general deterrence is to dissuade would-be criminals by revealing the repercussions of their actions. Crime rates are one indicator of success or failure; for example, the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia was implemented nationwide. The agreement severely limited legal gun ownership and mandated a register of all weapons in the nation; it equally demanded permits for all gun transactions. The NFA was notable in large part because it outright prohibited the possession of certain firearms, including automatic rifles and certain types of shotguns.
For those who turned in firearms they had obtained illegally, the NFA provided legal amnesty without financial compensation. In the seven years after the bill’s passage, Australia’s average suicide rate by firearm fell by 57% when compared to the seven years previous; homicides committed with firearms decreased by 42% on average (Beauchamp, 2022). This indicates that the NFA was effective in decreasing the suicide and murder rates with firearms in Australia, which was a good outcome.
The goal of specific deterrence is to reduce the likelihood of future criminal behavior by a specific offender through the application of penalties and punishments, which can be monitored to track recidivism rates. Gouchie (2021) outlines that in Australia, “…prisons and intermediate sanctions” are not an effective strategy in reducing criminal behavior and that “intermediate sanctions were associated with a 1% decrease in recidivism” (p 17). This means that recidivism reduction showed little positive correlation with deterrence strategies in Australia; the author provides a comparative case.
Between 1969 and 1993, 97 papers were published on the topic of education and recidivism; 85% of these showed a favorable correlation between reduced recidivism and correctional education (Gouchie, 2021). Based on these published facts, there was no positive outcome regarding crime deterrence or recidivism reduction. One associated issue is the consideration of multiple factors; this can involve combining deterrence and rehabilitation to reduce recidivism. Gouchie (2021) confirmed, “punitive sentences alone do not solve the factors that lead to crime” (p 16). This suggests that deterrence can also reduce recidivism, similar to rehabilitation; therefore, the two should work in tandem.
Rehabilitation in Australia
Rehabilitation Support
Multiple regulations and programs in Australia have been implemented to support the rehabilitation of ex-offenders. Bartels et al. (2019) confirm that “$4.4 billion was spent nationally on corrective services in 2017-2018, 29 an increase of 8 percent on the previous year” (p 111). The Australian government spent more funds on prisons, probation, and parole as corrective services, and even increased spending by 8%. If the government were opposed to rehabilitation, it could not have channeled such large funds or increased them.
Funding enables the employment of trained personnel, including psychologists, rehabilitation experts, and social workers. Such individuals provide crime offenders with evidence-based therapies designed to address their individual needs. Some of the rehabilitation centers include Odyssey House Victoria, Buttery, and South Pacific Private. Section 193a Corrective Services Act (2006) explains that “Corrective Services Act 2000 is for ‘community safety and crime prevention through humane containment, supervision and rehabilitation” (p 6). This demonstrates that the Act prioritizes the rehabilitation of convicts to reduce recidivism and enhance public safety.
Rehabilitation Evaluation
Rehabilitation has worked in some cases in Australia among prisoners. Day (2020) elaborates that one prisoner in a group of 12 who committed major violent offenses may benefit from Australian rehabilitation programs. This suggests that, under certain conditions and considering other factors, rehabilitation programs have been effective in reducing recidivism, indicating that rehabilitation has been partially achieved.
Regarding the lower performance of rehabilitation, there is a limited resource issue. Inconsistent and weak political and public backing likewise pose problems for implementing high-integrity rehabilitation programs in Australia’s correctional systems (Day, 2020). Financial aid has been a key recommendation in reports submitted by rehabilitation centers in Australia.
Better-quality rehab services can only be achieved when amenities are readily available. Lloyd (2018) mentions that “The Buttery rehab has four Magistrates Early Referral Into Treatment (MERIT) beds only and these beds are infrequently available …” (p 15) … “adequate funding of Riverlands…” (p 6). This symbolizes that those seeking therapy may have to wait a long period before they can enroll in the MERIT program, which could slow down their recovery and have unfavorable consequences.
The program’s duration may also limit bed availability if participants must remain in therapy for an extended period to benefit. Generally, people’s access to therapy and the length of time it takes to recover might be negatively affected by the scarcity of MERIT beds, which can affect the quality of rehab services. The last part of the quote means that Riverlands has fewer funds to serve those under 18. There is a positive outcome since one prisoner out of 12 could benefit from rehabilitation services. The standing challenge is limited resources; once this is addressed, there can be better outcomes from rehab services in Australia.
Deterrence and Rehabilitation Pros and Cons in Australia
Both of these strategies have their advantages and disadvantages when put into practice. Bun et al. (2020) state that “criminal activity seems to be highly responsive to the prospect of arrest and conviction, but less responsive to the prospect or severity of imprisonment” (p 2322). This means that the likelihood of being caught and convicted has a significantly greater impact on crime reduction than does the projected harshness of punishment.
Based on this observation, it is possible and advised that Australia practice more arrests and convictions rather than severe imprisonment to reduce crime rates. On the other hand, deterrence similarly carries a disadvantage of a death association. Doherty’s (2021) statistical report holds that in the year 2020-2021, there were several instances of bloodshed and deaths; for example, 82 deaths in custody,16 in police custody, and 66 in prison custody.
Doherty’s report proceeds to clarify that from 1991 to 2021, there have been 489 indigenous custody deaths. Doherty breaks it down that, out of 16, fifteen people were killed by police while trying to arrest and detain them. Therefore, deterrence does more harm than good by taking more lives.
Conversely, rehabilitation also has its benefits and drawbacks for crime reduction. Cale et al. (2018) state that “training and programs may be more effective for certain groups of prisoners…” (p 5). This is an advantage, as it helps ex-prisoners attain job security. Nevertheless, the probability of recidivism among formerly incarcerated people is likely to decrease through participation in rehabilitation programs since it emphasizes job training and placement after release. Recidivism is reduced mainly among individuals who committed crimes due to a lack of an income source.
Nonetheless, rehabilitation also has shortcomings, including limited resources, as experienced by Riverlands (Lloyd, 2018). Rehabilitation programs require financial backing, as they often entail high upfront costs for personnel, space, and training materials. Cale et al. (2018) further elaborate that rehab effectiveness diminishes over time. This indicates that ex-offenders need constant follow-up with rehabilitation programs to sustain the gains made through their participation. Therefore, rehabilitation should be prioritized, as it makes a positive difference to Australians through job creation and is not associated with deaths, unlike deterrence.
Conclusion
In summary, both deterrence and rehabilitation have benefits and drawbacks that must be weighed while attempting to lower crime rates in Australia. The threat of death may be enough to deter would-be offenders, but it comes with the drawback of evoking a response that is too extreme. However, rehabilitation has the potential to lower recidivism rates, but only if substantial resources are allocated and former inmates are regularly monitored. High-quality rehabilitation programs in Australia’s correctional facilities face obstacles such as a lack of funding and public support. Therefore, it is essential to consider both tactics in lowering crime rates in Australia, but prioritize rehabilitation since it does not cause any death like deterrence.
References
Bartels, L., Henshaw, M., & Hopkins, A. (2019). Set up to fail? Examining Australian parole compliance laws through a therapeutic jurisprudence lens. University of Western Australia Law Review, 45(1), 107-136.
Beauchamp, Z. (2022, May 25). Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted. Vox.
Bun, M. J., Kelaher, R., Sarafidis, V., & Weatherburn, D. (2020). Crime, deterrence and punishment revisited. Empirical Economics, 59, 2303-2333.
Cale, J., Day, A., Casey, S., Bright, D., Wodak, J., Giles, M., & Baldry, E. (2018). Australian prison vocational education and training and returns to custody among male and female ex-prisoners: A cross-jurisdictional study. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 1-17.
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act. (1988). 1-139.
Day, A. (2020). At a crossroads? Offender rehabilitation in Australian prisons. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(6), 939-948.
Doherty, L. (2021). Deaths in custody in Australia 2020–21. Australian Institute of Criminology. 1-101.
Gouchie, N. (2021). Counting Recidivism, and Achieving Sentencing Goals: A comparative study of the Canadian and Australian criminal justice systems with policy reform recommendations. Master of Public Policy Capstone Project (University of Calgary). 1-38.
Livings, B. (2020). Sentencing to protect the safety of the community. Adelaide Law Review, 41(2), 395-420.
Lloyd, E. (2018). Inquiry into the Provision of Drug Rehabilitation Services in Regional, Rural and Remote New South Wales. 1-19.
Mason, G. (2019). A picture of bias crime in New South Wales. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11(1), 47-63.
Section 193a Corrective Services Act (2006).