LAWS THERE TO BE USED

THERE are people walking the streets who, in the community’s view, gave up their right to be part of society the moment they preyed on a child in some way.

There are men out there who have strangled partners almost to the point of death, yet they are free to live among us.

Earlier this year the Bulletin revealed how non-fatal strangulation – seen by police, scientific researchers and the State Government as a red flag in domestic violence to future homicide – was not attracting sentencing that reflected what could be imposed under law or what the community would expect.

Today we reveal a similar revolving door is operating with sentences handed down to offenders in cases involving children or child-exploitation material. Like domestic violence, child abuse is a first-order issue in the community. We agree with Bravehearts campaigner Hetty Johnston when she warns how dangerous and nonsensical it can be to water down punishment. As she says, if legislation is loose then a soft judge may opt for a slap on the wrist.

In a recent case, a court accepted there were extenuating circumstances in a case involving a meth-addled man.

He ended up walking with a suspended sentence. For the wider community, drugs are not an excuse.

Of course there must be separation of powers, but that does not mean the courts ignore what the community thinks is a reasonable punishment.

If the guidelines set by legislation are vague or too broad, the Parliament has to change them.

Legislators should also review controls that exist with judges. If they keep allowing offenders to walk with little obvious penalty, then the job-for-life that seems to apply should be overturned.