Julie-Anne Kincade: Law Association Vice President on the Government toughening up the Three Strikes rule

There's disagreement as the Government toughens up its Three Strikes rule for offenders.

It's lowering the threshold for a first strike warning from 24 months imprisonment to 12 months.

It's also agreed to activate strike warnings for people who commit any of 42 qualifying offences.

Law Association Vice President Julie-Anne Kincade told Mike Hosking there's no evidence this will help.

She says everyone wants less crime, but this is going to put people in prison who shouldn't necessarily be there. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Change coming to the three strikes raise human jails is
going to be allowing at the threshold entry point currently
based around the two year sentence that'll be have to won.
The Law Association Vice president Julian Kincaid's with us on
this Juliane morning to you.

Speaker 2 (00:11):
Good morning, Mike.

Speaker 1 (00:12):
You're disappointed. Will that be a fairce eummation of your view?

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Very disappointed. We did make submissions to the committee about
the issues that we saw with the three strikes as
it was currently drafted prior to the United slant yesterday
by Nicola McKay. And this is just exacerbating a problem
that will exist anyway.

Speaker 1 (00:33):
Is it the three strikes or is it the trigger point.

Speaker 2 (00:37):
It's a combination of it all. First of all, there's
no evidence that this actually works in the way that
people want to work. It's not at terence. Unfortunately, what
we want, all of us want less crime and less
serious crime. But this is actually going to capture all
sorts of people who shouldn't necessarily be there. For example,
sencing is very nuanced and difficult, and some people might

(00:59):
be sent to jail simply because they don't have a
house in which they can do an electronically monitored sentence.
It will lead to unfair and unjust outcomes.

Speaker 1 (01:06):
Is it nuanced because they've made it nuanced, and it
doesn't have to be as nuanced as it is.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
No sentencing must be nuanced. There are so many factors
in human beings that apply. We look first at the
offense always in sentencing, and the judge takes a starting
point based on the offense, and then they look at
factors that are unique to that offender. And there's a
balance that has to be performed with all sentences. And

(01:33):
it's complex, and that complexity might not always come across
in a newspaper article, which I think is where a
lot of the people who see problems get their information.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
But those people have a vote, as to you, and
this is where we're at. We're at the intersection of
public opinion versus the legal fraternity, aren't we.

Speaker 2 (01:54):
Yes, one would expect that any changes are based on evidence,
and if they seriously want there to be a difference
made to serious offending, they need to put more money
into mental health and other rehabilitation processes which help to
keep make sure take away the causes of crime, and
that will impact on the people committing crimes.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
True to say, if you're in jail, you don't commit crime.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
Actually not true.

Speaker 1 (02:22):
You're not breaking into my house while you're in jail.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
No, you're not breaking into your house. But there are
other crimes that people commit allegedly at the moment of
a few cases before the courts, whilst they're in jail.
That is not the issue. I'm also very very concerned
about the lack of parole. Parole is an incentive for
good behavior, and it encourages people, incentivises them to do
engage with psychologists and take programs, understand the trigger points.

(02:49):
Under this regime, the most serious offenders will be not
allowed any parole. They won't be given any rehabilitation. We
can say that now, and then they'll be chucked out
on the street without the There's strong support that the
parole system puts around people to make sure they transition
back into our society. This is actually going to achieve
exactly the opposite of what they want to achieve, and

(03:12):
that's what concerns us.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
Julien Kin Kay, appreciate your time very much. Mike. We
don't want to deterrent. We want more bad people in
prison for longer. Mike. The reason we have so many
recidibus criminals is because of that defense Lawyer're making excuses
for them and why they offend, and so neither party
shall agree.

Speaker 2 (03:26):
For more from The mic Asking Breakfast Listen live to
news talks it'd be from six am weekdays, or follow
the podcast on iHeartRadio