Mandatory sentencing is one of the most contentious issues in modern criminal justice. Advocates argue it deters crime by establishing clear consequences, while critics claim it removes judicial discretion and fails to address root causes. In Darwin, where crime is often fuelled by a complex interplay of socio-economic factors, cultural dynamics, and repeat offenders, the question is particularly relevant. Does mandatory sentencing achieve its intended purpose, or is it merely a political tool that fails in practice?
At its core, mandatory sentencing is designed to create a predictable legal framework where specific crimes carry fixed penalties, regardless of mitigating circumstances. The theory is simple, if criminals know they will face a guaranteed sentence, they will be less likely to commit offenses. This assumes that crime is, at least to some extent, a rational calculation, an offender weighs the risks and consequences before acting.
In the Northern Territory, where issues like property crime, violent assaults, and repeat offenders dominate headlines, mandatory sentencing policies have been introduced with the intent of curbing lawlessness. The argument is that a firm, no-exceptions approach will deter both first-time and habitual offenders by removing any leniency that might encourage recidivism.
Deterrence theory suggests that the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment all play a role in preventing crime. However, of these three factors, certainty appears to have the greatest deterrent effect. Criminals are less concerned with the length of a sentence and more with whether they will be caught at all.
In Darwin, as in other parts of Australia, mandatory sentencing has been applied to a range of crimes, particularly repeat property offenses and violent crimes. Yet, crime rates remain persistently high in certain demographics. This raises a critical question, If harsh sentencing is truly a deterrent, why do some criminals continue to re-offend despite the guaranteed penalties?
The answer lies in criminal behaviour. Many offenders, particularly those engaged in impulsive crimes, do not engage in the rational cost-benefit analysis that mandatory sentencing assumes. Crimes committed under the influence of alcohol or drugs, crimes of passion, or those carried out by individuals with deeply ingrained behavioural issues are not always deterred by the fear of punishment.
One of the strongest arguments for mandatory sentencing is its potential to incapacitate repeat offenders. By removing career criminals from society, at least temporarily, it provides immediate relief to communities plagued by persistent crime. A criminal behind bars can not harm the public.
In Darwin, certain individuals are well-known to law enforcement, repeat home-invaders, violent offenders, and those who cycle in and out of the justice system with alarming regularity. Mandatory sentencing prevents these individuals from re-offending for the duration of their incarceration, reducing crime in the short term. However, upon release, many return to the same patterns of behaviour.
The failure to address the deeper issues, whether substance abuse, lack of employment opportunities, or ingrained antisocial behaviour, means that mandatory sentencing often becomes a revolving door. Locking someone up for a few years without any attempt at rehabilitation simply delays, rather than prevents, further criminal activity. A major fact, however, that must be acknowledged, like hypnotism, is that an offender must want to be rehabilitated, otherwise they won’t be.
A major criticism of mandatory sentencing is that it removes judicial discretion, treating all offenders equally regardless of the specifics of their case. Critics argue that not all crimes are the same, and neither are all criminals. A first-time offender who makes a poor decision may not deserve the same punishment as a hardened criminal who has spent years refining their craft.
In the Northern Territory, where Indigenous Australians are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, mandatory sentencing has led to concerns about fairness. Cases have arisen where minor property offenses have resulted in severe penalties, leading to debates about whether the law is being applied too rigidly.
I am, aware of several offenders who were given lengthy sentences by judges and in one particular case the quite obviously discriminatory judicial member stated, I am providing a harsher sentence to you (a white man in his early twenties, guilty of the same offence as his co-conspirators) because its your first offence and it will provide a better deterrent to you. Since the young man has now suffered the brutality of racially imposed conviction, he has also since been sexually abused based on his race in an understaffed prison.
This highlights the real need for judicial reform and the removal of several activist and blatantly discriminating judges from the bench. It also highlights the failure to provide adequate duty of care to prisoners, whilst in prison criminals are not free, however, they are expected to be safe.
Proponents will argue that discretion leads to inconsistency, where lenient judges allow repeat offenders to escape meaningful consequences. From a security perspective, predictability in sentencing removes ambiguity and ensures that justice is applied uniformly. The challenge is finding a balance, one that ensures serious criminals are dealt with effectively while allowing some flexibility for unique circumstances.
Beyond its impact on crime rates, mandatory sentencing carries significant financial and social costs. The Northern Territory already has one of the highest incarceration rates in Australia and maintaining a large prison population is expensive. The more individuals who receive long sentences, the greater the burden on taxpayers. This can be counter-ed through productive prion employment programs, however, given the widely publicised corruption in the NT government, what protections, if any, could be provided to stop prisoner exploitation?
Over-reliance on incarceration will create a hardened criminal underclass. Prisons are not merely punishment centres; they are also breeding grounds for criminal networking, where first-time offenders are exposed to more experienced criminals, leading to further entrenchment in the criminal lifestyle. This can be affectively stopped through better prison design and greater use of solitary confinement, however, long-term solitary confinement correlates with a range of neurological disorders.
If mandatory sentencing is to be truly effective, it must be paired with strategies that address the root causes of crime. Otherwise, the cycle continues, offenders serve their time, are released back into society with no support or guidance, and inevitably re-offend.
A multi-pronged approach to crime prevention is needed, focusing on increased security and police visibility, rehabilitation and behavioural intervention programs, targeted sentencing reforms, and stronger community involvement. Criminals are deterred more by the likelihood of getting caught than by the length of their sentence. A 2-year sentence in general population could be alternatively transferred into 3 months solitary confinement and may have a far more beneficial effect. A hybrid approach, where mandatory sentences apply to egregious repeat offenders but allow for judicial discretion in lesser cases, may be more effective?
Community-driven crime prevention initiatives, mentorship programs, and local engagement can help deter criminal behaviour before it starts. These must be grassroots based and not receive any government or taxpayer funding except by individual donation. The effectiveness or failure of such programs can not be adequately judged when there is still a reward for failure.
The effectiveness of mandatory sentencing depends on what one hopes to achieve. If the goal is immediate incapacitation of dangerous criminals, then it serves its purpose. If the goal is long-term crime reduction, the results are more debatable.
In Darwin, where crime is often opportunistic and fuelled by substance abuse and economic disadvantage, the assumption that mandatory sentencing alone can act as a deterrent is obviously flawed. Criminals who do not believe they will get caught, or who act impulsively, are not rational actors responding to sentencing structures.
A more effective approach is one that integrates enforcement with preventative measures, ensuring that criminals are punished appropriately while also addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour. Blindly applying harsh sentences without considering the broader context is not a solution, it is a policy of delay, one that has ultimately created more problems than it solved.
Mandatory sentencing is a tool, but like any tool, it must be used wisely. Without broader reforms and strategic crime prevention efforts, it risks being little more than a blunt instrument, capable of imposing order, but incapable of creating real, lasting change. Personally, I am an advocate for mandatory sentencing, but I am not an economic retard. The use of Mandatory sentencing has been a reactive measure in the NT to activist and revisionist judicial members seeking to impose their own social agendas. I would rather see better judgements and fair and intelligent judicial members that sentenced based on consistency and fairness. However, there is no current political will to reform the judiciary or place independent external reviews on their sentences. I do not foresee mandatory sentencing use in the NT in a surgical manner, only a blunt instrument. Its continued use will inherently lead to misuse and injustice. Will that injustice counter that of activist judicial members that refuse to be reformed, only time will tell. However, the obvious lawfare that the judiciary is now involved in, extending decision times, and constant deferments is an active attempt to push back against the government and a public that considers them completely incredulous. From the author.
The opinions and statements are those of Sam Wilks and do not necessarily represent whom Sam Consults or contracts to. Sam Wilks is a skilled and experienced Security Consultant with 3 decades of expertise in the fields of Real estate, Security, and the hospitality/gaming industry. His knowledge and practical experience have made him a valuable asset to many organizations looking to enhance their security measures and provide a safe and secure environment for their clients and staff.
コメント