This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/19/denis-napthines-law-and-order-drive-is-making-no-difference-to

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Denis Napthine's law and order drive 'is making no difference to crime' Denis Napthine's law and order drive 'is making no difference to crime'
(about 2 hours later)
Victoria’s peak legal body has made a scathing assessment of the Napthine government’s law and order record, saying “there’s not a scintilla of evidence” that any of its harsh measures – many borrowed from New South Wales – have made a difference to crime.Victoria’s peak legal body has made a scathing assessment of the Napthine government’s law and order record, saying “there’s not a scintilla of evidence” that any of its harsh measures – many borrowed from New South Wales – have made a difference to crime.
The president of the Law Institute of Victoria, Geoff Bowyer, told Guardian Australia the Napthine government’s latest initiative, which would enable police to seize assets they believed were the proceeds of crime, “turned on its head” the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.The president of the Law Institute of Victoria, Geoff Bowyer, told Guardian Australia the Napthine government’s latest initiative, which would enable police to seize assets they believed were the proceeds of crime, “turned on its head” the principle that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
The government announced on Tuesday that courts would have the power to decide whether someone’s property was obtained through serious criminal activity. The person whose assets had been seized would need to prove they had acquired them lawfully.The government announced on Tuesday that courts would have the power to decide whether someone’s property was obtained through serious criminal activity. The person whose assets had been seized would need to prove they had acquired them lawfully.
That reverses the position now, where it is the authorities who need to prove the assets of a suspected drug dealer, for instance, were unlawfully obtained. No conviction would be needed before property is confiscated.That reverses the position now, where it is the authorities who need to prove the assets of a suspected drug dealer, for instance, were unlawfully obtained. No conviction would be needed before property is confiscated.
“It reverse the onus of proof,” Bowyer said. “It’s OK for the government to say they have a right to appeal, but what are they going to appeal with? They won’t have any assets to mount a challenge.”“It reverse the onus of proof,” Bowyer said. “It’s OK for the government to say they have a right to appeal, but what are they going to appeal with? They won’t have any assets to mount a challenge.”
Denis Napthine’s Coalition government, which faces an election on 29 November, has been active on law on order after arguing before the 2010 poll that Victorians were ‘’sick of living in fear’’.Denis Napthine’s Coalition government, which faces an election on 29 November, has been active on law on order after arguing before the 2010 poll that Victorians were ‘’sick of living in fear’’.
Many of its measures have reduced the discretion of judges to take into account individual circumstances when sentencing criminals. It has introduced a mandatory minimum sentence of four year for serious assault and has brought in “baseline” sentences – a guide for judges as to the median or midpoint sentence required for murder, drug trafficking, incest and culpable driving. The attorney general, Robert Clark, said they would boost the “patently inadequate average sentences currently being imposed for some of the most serious of crimes”.Many of its measures have reduced the discretion of judges to take into account individual circumstances when sentencing criminals. It has introduced a mandatory minimum sentence of four year for serious assault and has brought in “baseline” sentences – a guide for judges as to the median or midpoint sentence required for murder, drug trafficking, incest and culpable driving. The attorney general, Robert Clark, said they would boost the “patently inadequate average sentences currently being imposed for some of the most serious of crimes”.
The government has also overhauled parole rules after Adrian Bayley raped and murdered the Melbourne woman Jill Meagher in 2012 while he was on parole. And from 1 September all suspended sentences will be abolished in Victoria, believed to be the first state to do so. The government has also overhauled parole rules after the rape and murder of Melbourne woman Jill Meagher in 2012 by a parolee. And from 1 September all suspended sentences will be abolished in Victoria, believed to be the first state to do so.
At the weekend the government announced it would introduce Australia’s toughest “one-punch” law, a minimum sentence of 10 years for someone found guilty of punching a person in the head without warning, resulting in death. It would apply whether the death was caused by the punch or by the deceased hitting their head as they fell.At the weekend the government announced it would introduce Australia’s toughest “one-punch” law, a minimum sentence of 10 years for someone found guilty of punching a person in the head without warning, resulting in death. It would apply whether the death was caused by the punch or by the deceased hitting their head as they fell.
This follows a spate of cases where people, especially young people socialising at night at licensed venues, have died after a single punch.This follows a spate of cases where people, especially young people socialising at night at licensed venues, have died after a single punch.
Napthine said the law was about “sending a clear message that one punch can kill. People should step back and think before they throw a punch.”Napthine said the law was about “sending a clear message that one punch can kill. People should step back and think before they throw a punch.”
In January NSW passed similar laws which mean a mandatory eight-year prison term for someone fatally punching someone while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Western Australia and the Northern Territory have similar laws.In January NSW passed similar laws which mean a mandatory eight-year prison term for someone fatally punching someone while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Western Australia and the Northern Territory have similar laws.
The Law Institute’s Geoff Bowyer said the laws were a response to “populist media pressure” because manslaughter laws – where an intention to kill is not a necessary element – already carried a maximum 20-year sentence. In December, responding to the NSW plans, Clark told the Age that the government had no pans to change the law because manslaughter was sufficient.The Law Institute’s Geoff Bowyer said the laws were a response to “populist media pressure” because manslaughter laws – where an intention to kill is not a necessary element – already carried a maximum 20-year sentence. In December, responding to the NSW plans, Clark told the Age that the government had no pans to change the law because manslaughter was sufficient.
“The government has done a U-turn,” Bowyer sid. “The 64 million-dollar question here is why has this government continued to fetter the discretion of judges when it comes to sentencing? We’ve entered the culture of denigration of the judiciary.“The government has done a U-turn,” Bowyer sid. “The 64 million-dollar question here is why has this government continued to fetter the discretion of judges when it comes to sentencing? We’ve entered the culture of denigration of the judiciary.
“The government is simply responding to the view of the populist press which says judges are soft and crime … We’ve not seen a scintilla of evidence that any of these measures have reduced the crime rate.”“The government is simply responding to the view of the populist press which says judges are soft and crime … We’ve not seen a scintilla of evidence that any of these measures have reduced the crime rate.”
Legal and civil liberties groups have consistently opposed most of the government’s “law and order” agenda as populist, ineffective in reducing crime and potentially unjust if the discretion of judges is removed.Legal and civil liberties groups have consistently opposed most of the government’s “law and order” agenda as populist, ineffective in reducing crime and potentially unjust if the discretion of judges is removed.
But the government is confident it has a mandate and community support for increasing sentences.But the government is confident it has a mandate and community support for increasing sentences.
The result has been a soaring prison population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in June that Victoria had the highest growth in prisoner numbers in the country, leaping by more than 14% between December 2012 and December 2013. Yet Victoria, starting from a comparatively low number of prisoners, still had the third lowest daily imprisonment rate in Australia.The result has been a soaring prison population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in June that Victoria had the highest growth in prisoner numbers in the country, leaping by more than 14% between December 2012 and December 2013. Yet Victoria, starting from a comparatively low number of prisoners, still had the third lowest daily imprisonment rate in Australia.