TYPES OF PENALTIES EVALUATE the effectiveness of different types of penalties, including diversionary programs No conviction recorded Caution Fine Bond Suspended sentence Probation Criminal Infringement Notice Penalty units Community Service Order Home detention Periodic detention Forfeiture of assets Imprisonment Diversionary programs TYPES OF PENALTIES No conviction recorded Caution Fine Bond Suspended sentence Probation Criminal Infringement Notice Penalty units Community Service Order Home detention Periodic detention Forfeiture of assets Imprisonment Diversionary programs

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES No conviction recorded  Description  EVALUATION Under s. 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.   This section allows a Court that finds a defendant guilty of an offence, BUT to discharge the defendant without recording a conviction. Because there is no conviction, there is no criminal record. In deciding whether to give a person a ‘section 10’, the Court must consider the following issues: The age, character, record, health and mental condition of the offender; and If the offence was trivial. Effective: Law Society (2009): Non-conviction orders are very useful for Young people Disadvantaged people People with an intellectual disability and People with mental health problems.

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Caution  Description  EVALUATION Police have the power to caution young offenders in relation to non-violent and less serious offences.   Adults also can be cautioned for minor drug offences. A caution is informally recorded on the person’s record. Effective: For young people, reoffending rate decreases from 68%  42% (BOCSAR, 2006) Ineffective: Indigenous young people are twice as likely to be sent to court (rather than Warned or Cautioned) than non-indigenous juveniles (Noetic Review, 2010)

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Fines (including penalty units)  Description  EVALUATION This is the most common type of penalty. It involves paying money to the state. Generally, a person has 28 days to pay a fine. If they don’t, they risk jail time. Usually, the judge will look at whether or not the offender is actually able to pay the fine.   Fines work in ‘penalty units’ because of inflation (money is worth less over time, so passing a law that sets the fine at $500 will eventually be nothing to most people). At the moment, 1 penalty unit equals $110, so a 5 penalty unit fine will be $550. Fines are usually given for strict liability and regulatory offences like speeding. Effective: Fines are a cost-effective, prompt and appropriate way of punishing AND creating a general deterrent for crimes that are not serious enough to deserve a criminal record. Ineffective: Higher fines (especially for driving offences) DO NOT deter people from committing driving offences (like speeding) (BOCSAR, 2007) Ineffective: For disadvantaged people who can’t pay them BUT since 2008, ‘Work and Development Orders’ are available to “pay off” a fine through community service. Ineffective: For young people who don’t have the ability to pay. Also, there is NO rehabilitation value (which is against the whole point of the juvenile justice system). (Hot Topics 73: Young People and Crime).

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Bond  Description  EVALUATION These are sometimes called “good behaviour bonds”.   Basically, the offender has to sign an agreement that they will stay out of legal trouble for anything up to 5 years. If he re-offends during that time, he has to face a magistrate or judge and may either get a warning or could be re-sentenced (giving him a more serious penalty). Effective: 89% of bonds are successfully completed (Judicial Commission of NSW, 2006). Ineffective: Over the last 10 years, breaches of bonds are enforced more frequently AND the conditions have become stricter (meaning that more people are failing to fulfill the requirements of their bonds, leading to further punishment) (NSW Law Society (2009))

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Suspended sentence  Description  EVALUATION A suspended sentence is a prison sentence that is not put into immediate effect (their prison sentence is ‘suspended’).   These let the offender know just how serious their crime was, and the consequences of re-offending, but at the same time giving them with an opportunity to avoid the consequences. Effective: Suspended sentences are an effective method of deterring and denunciating offenders (AIC, 2009). Effective: 75% of offenders given a suspended sentence didn’t commit another crime during the suspension of their sentence (NSW Sentencing Council 2011) Effective: 81% of judges believed that they were a good option in some cases (NSW Sentencing Council 2011) Ineffective: They’re not always used appropriately (BOCSAR, 2010) Ineffective: Suspended sentences have no greater deterrent effect than Bonds (BOCSAR, 2008) Ineffective: The failure to consistently prosecute breaches of suspended sentences reduced their effectiveness as a deterrent.

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Probation  Description  EVALUATION These are like a Bond, but with extra conditions (e.g. the offender has to report to a probation officer at certain times). Controlled by the NSW Probation Service. Effective: Probation is an important sentencing alternative for the courts.

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Criminal Infringement Notice  Description  EVALUATION AKA: ‘On-the-spot fines’ Introduced through the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Notice Offences) Act 2002 to all police operations in NSW in 2007.   The notices provide police with an easy, additional way to deal with minor incidents of offensive conduct, shoplifting, etc. Effective: CINs increase the ‘resource efficiency’ of police (freeing them from the paperwork usually involved) Ineffective: There is a risk of ‘net widening’ (more people than usual will be dragged into the CJS) (NSW Ombudsman, 2009) Ineffective: The risks are greater for poorer sections of the community, including Aboriginal people (NSW Ombudsman, 2009)

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Community Service Order  Description  EVALUATION Orders that require offenders to be involved in community service for a maximum of 500 hours.   Offenders may also be required by the courts to undergo mandatory alcohol or drug-testing, or to attend counseling programs. The type of service can includes painting, cleaning and repairing services for pensioners or community groups, as well as rubbish removal. Effective: Much higher likelihood of rehabilitating criminal offenders, because it punishes them through restrictions on their time and liberty, as well as encouraging them to reform their behaviour (AIC 2009) Effective: CSOs are also cost-effective for the authorities (AIC 2009)

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Home detention  Description  EVALUATION Home detention allows suitable offenders to serve prison sentences of 18 months or less in their own homes.   A way to punish less serious offenders by depriving them of their liberty, while still allowing them to maintain family and community ties and employment. Home detention conditions are strict. As well as being confined to their home (unless doing approved activities) other conditions include: electronic monitoring accepting home visits at any time from a Corrective Services officer accepting regular drug and alcohol testing Effective: It keeps less serious offenders out of fulltime imprisonment, which means keeping them away from the influence of hardened criminals (Corrective Services NSW, 2011) Effective: The majority do not reoffend within two years of release (Corrective Services NSW, 2011) Effective: Home detention is cost-effective when compared to fulltime imprisonment (Corrective Services NSW, 2011) Ineffective: There are a number of barriers to accessing home detention. The main barrier is that Home Detention is not available in all areas of NSW (Corrective Services NSW, 2011)

It is NO LONGER a sentencing option (since October 2010). TYPES OF PENALTIES Periodic detention  Description  EVALUATION This is when you are imprisoned for a certain amount of time each week (usually it is weekend detention, but it can be during the week if your job is weekend work).   It is NO LONGER a sentencing option (since October 2010). Ineffective: So ineffective that periodic detention was removed in NSW in 2010. WHY? Lack of resources; lack of rehabilitation (NSW Sentencing Council 2008) Replaced in 2010 by Intensive Correction Orders: The Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 This is a NEW(ish) sentencing option in NSW (only for offenders facing less than 2 years possible imprisonment) where the offender gets conditions placed on him. For example: MANDATORY/COMPULSORY participation in rehabilitation programs Strict curfews and association restrictions 24/7 electronic monitoring Community service work

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Forfeiture of assets  Description  EVALUATION “Confiscation” under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) and Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW) (COPOCA).   Serves a number of purposes. Tries to deter crime by reducing its profitability, Lowers offenders’ ability to finance further criminal activity. Reimburses (“pays back”) the state for the costs of fighting crime. Difficult to evaluate… The extent to which criminals are deterred from committing further crime is hard to measure because there are usually OTHER penalties involved that might be causing the deterrent effect (AIC 2010)

TYPES OF PENALTIES Imprisonment  Description Following the Crimes (Sentencing Procedures) Act 1999 (NSW), judges have to use imprisonment as a last resort after ALL other options have been found to be inappropriate.   But imprisonment is being increasingly used Since 2002, Australia’s rate of imprisonment increased by 11%. This is baffling, given how ineffective it is. In the end, though, only 9% of people convicted of crimes are imprisoned.

NOT A SPECIFIC deterrent (for the offender) TYPES OF PENALTIES Imprisonment  EVALUATION Ineffective: Does not work well as a deterrent:   NOT A SPECIFIC deterrent (for the offender) Offenders who received a prison sentence are slightly MORE likely to re-offend than those who received a non-custodial (non-prison) penalty ‘The Effect of Prison on Adult Re-offending’, BOCSAR, 2010 NOT EVEN A GENERAL deterrent (for the society) Crime levels are not affected by the severity of sentences Crime and Justice - A Review of Research

TYPES OF PENALTIES Imprisonment  EVALUATION Ineffective: For young offenders (called a ‘control order’)… It costs $541 per day to keep a juvenile offender in detention. 48% of the budget of the NSW Department of Juvenile Justice is spent keeping juvenile offenders in custody…   … BUT NO LINK HAS BEEN FOUND between young people getting prison sentences and a drop in reoffending. The specific deterrent effect of custodial penalties on juvenile re-offending (2009)

EVALUATION Ineffective: For ABORIGINAL offenders TYPES OF PENALTIES Imprisonment  EVALUATION Ineffective: For ABORIGINAL offenders The main group being imprisoned more frequently are Aboriginal people.   In the article ‘Locking Out Rehabilitation’ – SMH (2009), the following was written: “Nearly 20 years after a Royal Commission into black deaths in custody recommended jail be used as a last resort, the proportion (percentage) of indigenous prisoners has doubled. The number of Aboriginal women behind Australian bars has tripled and the number of black juveniles in custody is climbing...” “About a quarter of Australia’s prisoners are indigenous (in 2007)”, which is surprising given that only 2% of our actual population is indigenous!

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Diversionary programs  Description  EVALUATION 1. MERIT program: The Magistrate’s Early Referral into Treatment Programme is the most widely spread diversionary option used by the Local Court. It aims to break the cycle of drug abuse and crime. To achieve this, the program addresses the underlying health, mental health and social welfare issues that lead to people ending up in the CJS. Effective: Reoffending within 12 months dropped from 49% to 35%. (BOCSAR, 2009)

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Diversionary programs  Description  EVALUATION 2. YOUTH JUSTICE CONFERENCING: Involves the families and victims face to face with the young offender where they can explain the impact that the crime has had on them. The young person must admit their responsibility for the offence.   It finishes with an ‘outcome plan’, which the offender has to agree to. This might include paying back the victim (e.g. working for them), apologising, going to counselling, etc. If the offender doesn’t follow the outcome plan, the young person can end up facing court instead. YJC is more about rehabilitation and ‘restorative justice’ rather than simply punishing the young offender Ineffective: The way that Youth Justice Conferencing works in NSW is NO MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE CHILDREN’S COURT in reducing reoffending - Youth Justice Conferencing vs Children’s Court: A comparison of re-offending, BOCSAR (2012) Effective: TIME: If the POLICE refer a young person to YJC, their case is over much more quickly than court (YJC vs Children’s Court: A comparison of time to finalisation, BOCSAR 2012) MONEY: YJC is more cost effective than the Children’s Court (YJC vs Children’s Court: A comparison of cost-effectiveness, BOCSAR 2012) VICTIM SATISFACTION: 88% of victims said they would recommend YJC to other victims (Participant Satisfaction with YJC, BOCSAR 2012) PUBLIC SUPPORT: 87% of people surveyed agreed that the victim should have this chance to talk to the offender about how the crime affected their life (Restorative Justice Initiatives: Public Support and Opinion in NSW, BOCSAR) Ineffective: Youth Justice Conferencing is underused (only 5% of young offenders) and police often don’t use it as way of diverting young people away from the court system (they wait until the judge sends the young person to YJC - WHICH DEFEATS THE PURPOSE of having a diversionary program (Noetic Review (2010))

Description EVALUATION TYPES OF PENALTIES Diversionary programs  Description  EVALUATION 3. FORUM SENTENCING: Like YJC, but for 18-24 year old offenders. Ineffective: Offenders dealt with under the Forum Sentencing Scheme are no less likely to re-offend (BOCSAR (2009))