A trawl of sentencing decisions by the ACT Supreme Court in the past year shows a bizarre trend.
I sense that the judiciary in the ACT has de facto decriminalised the violent consequences of drug addiction but left the distribution and possession of drugs highly criminalised.
It seems the judiciary is handing out bonds and suspended sentences for armed robbery, assault and burglary but handing stiff sentences out to non-violent drug possessors and dealers. First-offence armed robbery offenders almost invariably get a bond, not jail, in the ACT. Indeed, the middle-aged speedster or drink-driver at least cops some real penalty of fine and suspension of licence.
I have just trawled the 45 Supreme Court sentencings in the past year covered by The Canberra Times. We cover a large portion of them, and in any event a good cross-section. The table shows the results.
The Supreme Court deals with the most serious cases – those that go beyond the Magistrates Court’s limit of two years’ jail. It also deals with those who elect to have a trial by jury rather than a trial before a magistrate.
Look at the trend. If you do a crime which involves violent invasion of or threat to someone’s person or home you have a 50-50 chance of getting a bond. If you deal in drugs or possess drugs without any other associated crime you have a 75-25 chance of going to jail.
Notice the trend in non-drug cases. Non-violent property crime gives you a 50-50 chance of going to jail. Sex crimes are treated as they always have – expect custody. It’s the same for other offences – arson, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and so on – you are much more likely to go to jail than not.
See the pattern? People who commit dangerous crimes like armed robbery or breaking into houses are more often than not escaping jail terms. All of those who were jailed were multiple offenders or had long records. The pattern for first-time armed robber is for him or her (increasingly her) to get a bond. We are decriminalising the violent consequences of the increasing misuse of drugs in society, while retaining heavy penalties for non-violent dealing.
Incidentally, 18 months ago I did a similar exercise. Then I noted a discrepancy between sentencing patterns of particular judges. I got a hammering in public from the Law Society and Bar Association along the lines of how dare you attack our precious judiciary. I also got a lot of private congratulations from within legal circles. Others attacked that exercise (and will no doubt attack this exercise) as superficial, not taking account of all the facts and circumstances etc etc. Well, I’m not writing a PhD thesis here. Yes, I am making some generalisations. But they are enlightening nonetheless, particularly as the generalisations even out when you categorise a year’s worth of Supreme Court cases. And as no-one else seems to be trawling ACT Supreme Court sentencing patterns, this is the best you’ve got.
Two decades ago armed robbers went to jail as a matter of course, so did most burglars, and they got steeper sentences than now when they average 21 months.
The reason is that so many armed robberies and burglaries are committed under the influence of drugs or in pursuit of money to buy them.
Just before retiring mid-year, Justice John Gallop said during a sentencing, “”Drug addicts do not have a licence to rob.” He gave the robber two-years non-parole. He was utterly wrong. Since then bonds have flown like confetti for armed robbers and burglars. People who commit violent, threatening and invasive acts because of drugs are routinely getting bonds in the ACT courts. I am neither condoning nor condemning, just stating the fact.
All these bonds would be a good thing if it were not for the fact that they often follow several “”last chances”. Jail is no solution, we know. We need closely monitored, high-intensity rehabilitation scheme to look after those who have strayed to drug addiction. But it ain’t going to happen because of the short-term cost and few politicians have the courage to look at the long-term.
Meanwhile, suppliers and possessors of drugs without violence are routinely going to jail. Sure, the suppliers are indirectly responsible for the subsequent crime of others because they demand a high price for their wares. But the non-violent supply of a drug, with which the recipient can do as he like, must rank as less of a menace than armed robbery – I’d rather be offered heroin which I can turn down than a syringe full of infected blood or a sawn-off shot gun.
Seriously, put aside for a moment the years of propaganda and brain-washing you might have received about drug dealing and ask yourself from a victim’s point of view, what would you prefer: a loaded shot-gun in your nose or a “”psst, want a cap of heroin”? They are both unpleasant, but I know which is more unpleasant. You can say “”go away” to the former. But the courts treat the crimes in reverse order of seriousness. It is the illogical manifestation of an illogical policy.
And this is my point. The courts, mere cogs in the system, are treating the crime-for-drug-money offenders as victims. Maybe they are. But they are creating a lot of other more innocent victims – bank tellers, servo attendants, pharmacists, supermarket check-out operators and others who are terrified by hold-ups, and householders and car-owners who suffer break-ins that cause lots of damage and fear.
Under the present prohibitionist regime we are getting an increasing number of both sorts of victim, because while ever addictive drugs remain criminalised more addicts will attempt to hook others on to the drug so they can increase the profits from supply to support their own habit. And they will also turn to crime to support their addiction.
And it is no good going the American way by jailing users, suppliers and robbers for madly long sentences. The drug problem proliferates under that regime as well.
Someone has got to cut the Gordian knot.