The main responsibility of any government is to protect its people from attack and to protect their property from theft and damage. It needs to ensure it, but our governments are not doing so.
We are faced with rising levels of car theft, car high jackings, home invasions by machete wielding thugs, arson attacks on tobacconists, arson attacks on bars and restaurants, and so on. We have habitual criminals on the streets, many crimes committed by those on parole or on early release from prison and the rate of reoffending after leaving prison is high. Clearly the system is broken – it is not working for us. It is imperative that we can live without fear.
Wouldn’t you like to know that you can go for a walk at night without having to look over your shoulder, fearful of attack, go to sleep confident that your home won’t be broken into and that your car won’t be stolen, know that your son won’t be targeted by some gang or assaulted when going into the city at night or recruited by some gang while at school or going to and from school? Wouldn’t it be nice to know that if you leave your phone or wallet on the restaurant table when you go to the bathroom, it will still be there when you get back? This is achievable, we (as a nation) just need to get tough on crime. Peaceful, law bidding people have much more freedom in a country that is tough on crime.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that we must be tough on criminals, we can still be understanding and compassionate, and that doesn’t necessarily mean light sentencing.
In deciding how to deal with criminals we can still recognise the circumstances that led to the person committing the crime – discovering the root cause of the person’s criminal activity. Once this is understood, then our judicial system needs to find the best ways to deal with those people – so they when they are allowed back into society, they no longer pose a threat – they will live as law abiding citizens.
In many cases incarceration is appropriate, and even then, we need to provide different types of incarceration, some having more emphasis on rehabilitation than others. Some may provide training – so the criminal is far more likely to be employable after release.
We need a better approach to dealing with criminals and that approach requires an understanding of the root cause of that criminal activity. This is not for the purposes of imposing a lighter sentence but is for the purposes of determining how best to ensure that the criminal will not reoffend and will no longer pose a threat to society.
The sentencing also needs to appease (or at least go some way to appeasing) the victim. This could follow the approach needed for a sincere apology, which is basically as follows:
- Recognition of harm caused: The perpetrator should recognise that what he (or she) did adversely affected the victim. This is a recognition of the victim’s perspective.
- Express Regret: Sincerely apologise for the hurt or harm caused. This should be an unequivocal apology – unqualified, unreserved, with no ifs or no buts., and no excuses.
- Make Amends: Offer a way to rectify the situation or compensate for the harm done.
- Commit to Changing behaviour – to avoid repeating the mistake.
- Explanation – The perpetrator should explain how he (or she) will change his (or her) behaviour in the future to prevent a repeat of the incident.
- Allow time – The perpetrator and victim need to be given time to digest and reflect and negotiate an arrangement acceptable to both parties.
If they fail to reach agreement, a suitably qualified third party should decide on the sentence or other course of action.
Are judges the right people to determine sentencing? They are not. Their role in relation to criminal matters is to ensure legal procedure is adhered to and that the accused gets affair trail. The jury determines guilt. Judges currently impose sentences. That should be changed. Judges are not experts in human behaviour, nor does their law education cover this field of science, and nor are they experts in field of rehabilitation.
A separate body of appropriately qualified people should decide sentencing and should be accountable for their performance in that regard. Of more importance is the right of society to be protected from attack and their property to be protected from theft and damage. Individuals who pose a further threat, who are unable to behave as law-abiding citizens, should be removed from society until thy no longer pose a threat.
Those sentencing criminals carry a big responsibility – ensuring that society is protected from attack and their property protected from theft and damage. As a result, their performance should be assessed, and those underperforming should be replaced. Society however cannot tolerate those who inflict overly harsh sentencing to reduce their error rate. The challenge is to get the balance right. They can have a higher error rate on less severe crimes and a very low error rate on the more serious offences like murder, aggravated assault and rape. Society nevertheless wants the comfort of knowing that the people sentencing criminals are assessed for performance, that those underperforming are replaced, and that the system is functioning to the level society expects.
A well-functioning criminal justice system is one that ensures that the criminal makes amends for the harm caused or otherwise appeases a reasonable victim and ensures that the criminal is far less likely to reoffend after serving the sentence. For far too long our system has focussed on the former, on the sentencing, resulting in high reoffending rates. A Classic Liberals government will ensure that our penal system provides effective rehabilitation, and reintegration programs.
The rehabilitation phase should focus on getting to understand the root cause of each person’s behaviour and helping them overcome that issue. Crime is not in a person’s DNA. It is invariably due to what adversity the person has experienced in life, often as a child. I am not saving this is a justification for a lighter sentence. I’m saying that if you want to reduce the prospect of the person reoffending, one needs to understand the root cause of that behaviour and then help the person overcome it.
The reintegration phase to help them develop the skills and attitude needed to work, earn, pay expenses and lead a comfortable life without the need for crime.
The resocialisation phase is to help them understand and meet societal expectations – in relationships and in the workplace. Part of this would cover the justification for those societal expectations – that they are needed for a well-functioning society.
Implementing these three phases would cost a lot of money, but it would be money well spent. It would significantly reduce the financial cost of crime to society and would enable society to live more peacefully and comfortably knowing they are far less likely to be attacked and far less likely to have their property stolen or damaged. It would also lead to a more trusting society.
It would be wrong to conclude that this program amounts to be ‘soft crime’. It doesn’t reduce the sentencing, the punishment, it serves to reduce reoffending and the cost of it.
Written by: Mark M.J. Morris (May 2026)