Fooling the public.

The New South Wales government is indulging in a smoke and mirrors attempt to fool the public that it has implemented a " get tough on crime " policy. A new law is passing through parliament that is supposed to introduce " mandatory minimum " sentences for an array of crimes.
To most people, " mandatory minimum " means an automatic prison sentence for the crimes listed. That is not the case. The new sentencing will apply to those who plead " not guilty " , but are found guilty at trial. For those who plead guilty the sentence will still be decided by the judge.

The list of proscribed crimes is an interesting mix that range from twenty five years prison for murder of a child, to civil offences such as malicious wounding, malicious grievous bodily harm - down to car rebirthing, cultivating prohibited plants and finally illegal possession of a firearm. These latter offences are supposed to attract a mandatory sentence of between three and ten years.

The legislation draws attention to the " one size fits all " attempt to bypass the wisdom of judges and magistrates to rule on the severity of a particular crime. Few would disagree with a harsh prison sentence for the murder of a child, but then there is the supposedly automatic three
year gaol term for being in posession of an unregistered firearm.
There are hundreds - and perhaps thousands - of farmers and rural folk who have unregistered shot guns and rifles - and have had them for generations - for the purpose of safely killing snakes that threaten their family or for mercifully killing terminal livestock. Do we seriously want to lockup such people who have committed no crime other than not having got around to complying with a law designed to remove guns from the cities ?
Wouldn't it be reasonable for a judge to vary the sentence between such a farmer - and a city criminal who used such a gun to holdup a TAB ?

The problem with passing harsh laws is that they usually bring unintended consequences. Knee jerk reactions intended to create brownie points with the public are virtually assured of creating a negative response somewhere down the track. They should be approached - with caution !