Crime is one of the greatest problems of any society. In particular, offenders in Australia are costing the nation a great number of resources, as well as social hardships and strains. The specific nature of crime is what determines the outcome, so things like recidivism, the victim’s well being and offender rehabilitation must be considered to uncover the real costs.
When looking at the violent offences, there are many things that draw a line between the treatment and assessment of the charges. The primary has to deal with the model and the exhibited behavior and different types of conditions present at that time. There is a noticeable difference between habitual aggression and a first or second charge offence. In the treatment process, those who are engaged in habitual crime have a greater chance to come in contact with services that provide some form of treatment. Some of the important applications and approaches in the treatment of offenders are the ways that they process the information, react emotionally, control or regulate own behavior, changes in their development with the use of learning theory motivation for aggressive behavior, and prevention in relapses (DeLisi, 2011). But even more important are the way the victims and nation react to offenders and what is needed from the justice system to set things right.
The cost of post-sentence preventive detention legislation, costs of victim services and the general nation’s input in Australia raises much debate with regard to its need, morality and effectiveness. The policy provides for the Supreme Court to order indefinite continued imprisonment or post-sentence monitoring of an offender if the court perceives the offender to be a threat to the community after completion of the term. There have been increased concerns of the community to the release of serious offenders, as it is unmonitored and the potential harm is thus considered. But at the same time, keeping inmates and spending resources is very costly, as the money spent on criminals can be used to better the lives of victims and their families. This legislation permits the Courts to order continued sentencing of convicted offenders upon assessment of their potential to pose a threat to the community after completion of the term (Dvoskin, 2012).
There would be no point to release offenders of high risk, only because they cost more, as people will continue to get hurt and rise the spending of resources even more. Extra authorities will have to be used; more victim services and incarceration costs will grow geometrically. Critiques of the legislation argue that indefinite sentencing legislation is an outcome of moral panic and politics of anxiety of community which lead to overspending and needless resources spent on those who do not need them. It was proposed that some people cannot be rehabilitated, and the money spent is wasted completely. Nonetheless, the issue of dangerousness and intolerable risk to the community begs the legislation to tackle the competing community right against the rights of the offenders. This legislation was initiated in 2003, in Queensland under the Dangerous Prisoners Act 2003 to permit for indefinite holding of offenders perceived to pose a serious threat to the community wellbeing after completion of sentence until full rehabilitation.
Despite the initiation of this legislation having endured a High Court challenge disputing its consistency to the Australian Constitution, controversy regarding this debate continues. All the laws relating to post sentencing, therapy and adaptation programs have been upheld, which proves that the legislation works, and any particular insight into the matter has concrete basis for law and regulations. The cost for detention pertains to the minimum resources spent on holding the offenders after they have completed their full term for a particular crime where they have been found guilty. This ensures safety of the nation, and the spending has been rather regulated. The sentencing already passes as a punishment to the offender, and any post sentence restraint adds to further punishment of the released convict. The goals of the detention program are the safety of the community and correction of the offender (Forgas, 1998). The basis of this policy is adequate community safety and continued restraint, care and/or therapy of a prisoner to aid their rehabilitation.
In Victoria, the application of the policy requires a satisfaction to a high probability that the offender will repeat an offense upon completion of term and subsequent release back to the community (Gilbert, Jones & Austin, 1986). Supposedly, the researcher should review the criminal history of the offender to conclude whether he poses high probability of potential risk or not. However, there is likelihood that the judge may commit fundamental attribution error (Scheb, 2009) in his or her decision to apply the post- detention leading to unfair extension of term for crime not committed. Sufficient proof of probability for recidivism is objectionable threat of the criminal recidivism after release from custody and/or free from judicial supervision. If the court finds the offender to pose serious threat to the community, the court must issue a subsequent supervision order to safeguard the community from the threats of serious offender, or if it is necessary to make an order for preventive detention (Sentencing Advisory Council 2006). Even though these inquire extra cost, it is beneficial in the long term, as people will be saved, and the moral cost will be much lower.
Various constitutional issues are connected to the proper procedure and administration of the legislation. These arguments focus on the consistence of the legislation with the constitution and the nation’s well-being. Both physical and moral damage have been evaluated in the Community Protection Act 1994 (NSW) (McSherry et al. 2006). In the end, it all centers on morality of people, society and the government. The Community Protection Act 1994 jeopardizes the strength of the judicial system developed under Chapter III since it requires the Supreme Court to implement a non-judicial role (Doyle & Ogloff, 2009). It is making a more personal application from the perspective of the person being tried and in relation to the damage they will cause to the community and the nation. It is obvious that the circumstances of the case play an important role, and if there is potential for rehabilitation, money and resources must be spent, as it will increase the strength of society and will lead to more support, financially and morally.
Overall, the system should consider the reasons for crime, costs for victim services, recidivism and the long term governmental budget output, as well as the taxpayers’ money. The detention might seem costly at the time, but it prevents future outbreaks, physical damages and emotional strain to many individuals and their families.
Reference List
DeLisi, M 2011, Violent Offenders: Theory, Research, Policy, and Practice, Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Burlington.
Doyle, D & Ogloff, J 2009, ‘Calling the tune without the music: a psycho-legal analysis of Australia’s post-sentence legislation’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 42, pp. 179-203.
Dvoskin, J 2012, Using Social Science to Reduce Violent Offending, Oxford University Press, New York.
Forgas, J 1998, ‘Happy and mistaken? Mood effects on the fundamentals attribution error’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 75, pp. 318-331.
Gilbert, D, Jones, E & Austin, T 1986, ‘Perceiver-induced constraint: interpretations of self-generated reality’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 50 no. 2, pp. 296-280.
McSherry B, Keyzer, P & Freiberg, A 2006, ‘Preventive Detention for ‘Dangerous’ Offenders in Australia: A Critical Analysis and Proposals for Policy Development’, Monash University.
Sentencing Advisory Council 2006, High-risk offenders: continued detention and supervision options, Melbourne, Victoria: Sentencing Advisory Council.
Scheb, J 2009, Criminal Law, Cengage Learning, Belmont.