Critics need to rethink results

THE results of the State Government's sentencing survey may be a disappointment to some of its many critics.

THE results of the State Government's sentencing survey may be a disappointment to some of its many critics.

Specifically, to some of the judges, lawyers, academics and libertarians who dismissed the survey's credibility before even knowing the results.

Some of them condemned it purely on the grounds it was a Herald Sun survey.

Clearly it was not, having been produced by the Department of Justice and offered to every newspaper in the state, but a Portland Observer survey or a Macedon Ranges Leader survey probably doesn't have quite the same dismissive ring to it.

The critics apparently think tabloid newspaper readers are incapable of expressing a legitimate view on current sentencing practices.

But despite their belief that those who did complete the survey would be rabid, Right-wing ratbags, the results suggest otherwise.

Not surprisingly, many of the 18,562 respondents chose very high sentence ranges for crimes of extreme violence, including murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, arson causing death and culpable driving.

They also took an extremely hard line on drug trafficking.

But the same respondents thought a non-custodial community corrections order was the appropriate penalty for crimes such as sexual penetration of a child under 16 in certain extenuating circumstances.

They took the same view in cases of making threats to kill and recklessly causing serious injury.

The task of respondents in choosing an appropriate sentence was not helped by not being told the offender's criminal history or any other potentially aggravating or mitigating circumstances in each of the 17 hypothetical scenarios in the survey.

But the loudest, least expected message from a high percentage was that there should not be such a big gap - and in some cases no gap - between maximum and minimum sentences.

A firm community belief that non-parole periods should be longer is food for thought on the eve of a report on the functions and the processes of the Adult Parole Board.

The review, due to be handed to government by the Sentencing Advisory Council this week, was prompted by growing concerns about the number of parolees re-offending, including 11 charged with murder in a two-year period.

The Government committed, while in opposition, to seek the views of all Victorians on sentencing reforms, including baseline sentences and mandatory minimum terms for serious injury offences involving gross violence.

Perhaps their survey results will help them justify reforms they were going to introduce. Whatever the motivation, it's time the holier-than-thou types opposed on principle to most reforms gave themselves a reality check.

Perhaps the critics of government by survey have forgotten that other community survey - the one last year that was promoted by all media.

The one that resulted in an overwhelming vote for the team promising tougher law and order and more meaningful, consistent sentencing.