Summarised by Centrist
The government’s reintroduction of the three strikes law has faced criticism for being a watered-down version of its original form.
Sean Plunket and Stephen Franks discussed how the coalition government’s attempt to bring it back falls short.
While ACT campaigned to reintroduce the policy, the current version still allows judges to override sentences if they find them “manifestly unjust.”
The original three strikes policy aimed to deter repeat offenders by enforcing maximum sentences and removing parole options after three serious convictions.
However, the current law retains loopholes that let judges decide otherwise. Stephen Franks explained, “They’ve left all the manifestly unjust stuff in there,” weakening the law’s intended impact.
“Criminals aren’t as stupid as people think. They knew a new sheriff had arrived in town. Criminology is pretty clear: offenders are gamblers. It’s the most distinctive characteristic of offenders generally. They back themselves, think they’re winners, and if there’s a chance, they’ll take it,” Franks said.
According to Franks, the best way to deter offending is speed and certainty of consequence. “Severity isn’t really up there—you don’t have to be overly punitive, but the consequence should be speedy and certain,” he argued.
