CONCLUSION

What basic principles, then, should govern society's response to the violent offender?

Many observers would argue that by the time a violent offender has reached prison, it is too late, and the most appropriate response to violence in Australia is to change those social conditions which give rise to violence in the first place.

It is important to recognise that if a 'solution' to the problem of violence does exist, it is not likely to be found in the Criminal Justice System. Resources available for the prevention and control of violence in Australia are limited. The National Committee on Violence will give substantial consideration to where these resources might most productively be allocated, whether in areas of family support, employment-based delinquency prevention programs, or more prisons. Of course, police, courts and correctional agencies make some difference. But overall, they constitute a very imperfect means of social control. A massive investment in criminal justice resources may produce some reduction in violence, but the marginal reduction is unlikely to be commensurate with the increased cost.

This is of course no consolation to Australia's correctional administrators, who must receive and manage those consigned to their custody, and do so with meager resources.

The fact remains that deprivation of liberty will continue to be the basic response to cases of serious violence in Australia.

Considerations of economy and justice should dictate that punishment not be imposed gratuitously. New South Wales and other jurisdictions have formally acknowledged that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort. At the same time, there are those offenders who constitute a real risk to society, and for whom there is no alternative to prison. It may thus be said that a significant number of prisoners do not really belong in prison, and a significant number who are in prison belong there for a long time. The challenge is that of identifying in which category a given prisoner might be placed. In light of the trend towards hardened public attitudes and longer sentences, it is important for reasons of justice as well as economy to ensure not only that pre-sentence assessment of violent offenders provides adequate information to the courts, but that appropriate treatment programs be made available, in the community and in the prison system.

For those prisoners who might be termed chronic violent offenders, the task then becomes identifying those who may be amenable to rehabilitation, and determining those rehabilitative treatments which may produce a positive and lasting effect.

Society's response to the violent offender has been characterised by contradiction and ambivalence. This may be explained in part by the fundamental inconsistencies, and indeed, the mutual exclusivity of the principles of punishment. It may also be explained by the absence of current, useful knowledge about the deterrent, incapacitative and rehabilitative effects of those policies which are in place. And by no means least, it flows from the indifference on the part of the Australian public to prisons generally, and their hostility to prisoners in particular.

To the extent that violence is a product of human nature, policies of deterrence and rehabilitation may have a positive effect. To the extent that violence is rooted in cultural and economic circumstances, penal policies will have less of an impact. The Australian public must be made aware, however; that whatever penal policies are likely to be effective will almost certainly be extraordinarily expensive.

It has long been an article of faith among Australian politicians that there are no votes in prisons. In the foreseeable future, penal policies appear destined to be dictated not by hard- headed evaluation, but by ill-informed public opinion, by fads, and by political expediency. Ultimately, it is the Australian taxpayer who will bear the long-term costs of continuing penal programs in the dark. The public and policy-makers alike will lack systematic information about the efficiency and effectiveness of alternative policies.

Meanwhile, it may be most appropriate to reserve imprisonment as a last resort, and to pursue strategies for the abatement of violence not in the criminal justice system but in family, education, and employment policy.

Message from the Queensland Government

Convicted bank robber John Killick, who has spent time in prison with notorious serial killers and rapists, said the possibility of release was an important element in giving the prisoners a reason to behave behind bars.

        “You don’t have to let them out, but you have to give them hope,” Mr Killick said.

        “It’s those who have got nothing to lose that become the most dangerous.”

The Conversation - 14 Articles published in April 2015 over 17 days on the State of Imprisonment