Crime

The cabbie who helped 11 passengers escape during a fatal attack on a Brisbane bus driver last month has been recognised by the taxi industry for bravery. The article also includes a call for mandatory minimums. 

Now, the argument against that call is that it restricts the ability of judges to take into account extenuating circumstances, and there have been at least two studies that I know of where, when given the full facts of a case, members of the public have given “softer” sentences than members of the judiciary. 

However, the "argument against" fails to acknowledge that the public often reacts with genuine fear to such incidents, and wants a way to feel safer. 

Legislative harshness (“hard on crime”) is a common response to such incidents, closely followed by calls for personal responsibility – some of which are misplaced and constitute victim blaming: neither is really appropriate. My understanding is that evidence –from criminologists and others – show that jobs are the best counter to crime; I suspect that improved (not necessarily more – maybe better directed) spending on mental health would help, as would facing the elephant in the room, which is that our modern, high pressure lifestyle both directly creates stress and inhibits the interconnectedness that some people need in order to cope with life. 

The other issue relates to "seeing justice to be done": the failure of the public to understand that justice is being done is a failure to educate people on the nature of punishment that has been agreed for civil society, and why that agreement has been reached. Such should be part of our education system, in my view.