Stone the CROs

A friend has drawn attention to an ABC news report on potential introduction by the South Australian government of 'Community Responsibility Orders', apparently another instance of the 'must be seen to be doing something so don't worry too much about legality or effectiveness' ethos evident in recent SA anti-bikie law.

The 'Young Offender Ban' Orders - which would seem to be modelled on ASBOs in the UK - might

allow courts to ban people from areas where they have committed low level crimes such as vandalism or 'hoon' driving. ...

The Attorney General Michael Atkinson says it will be similar to a restraining order on an individual.

"We do not want him hanging around in a gang drinking alcohol, swearing, littering, intimidating people say in a shopping centre, a railway station or a public transport hub," he said.

In the UK there has been disagreement about the effectiveness and appropriateness of 'anti-hoodie' orders as mechanisms for clearing venues such as "a public transport hub", punishing young offenders or (more usefully) persuading them to act with greater civility.

My skepticism is not lessened by reading the SA Attorney-General's comment that: "We want to publish his name and photograph to the local community whom he afflicts". Irrespective of wariness about stigma as a way of inducing attitudinal change among yobs, an immediate thought is that CROs in South Australia may be counter effective. In the UK some miscreants have revelled in attainment of an ASBO or two: getting the Order is a validation, an indication of masculinity or authenticity, and the more Orders the better if you are a serious knob-head.

Publishing the offender's name and image (why not publish his address so we can all go round and throw rocks through dad's window or publish her phone number so we can wake her up at 3am?) may reinforce the scariness of the offender. If you see the equivalent of a 'wanted dead or alive, guaranteed 100% bad egg' poster you may hand over your goodies without hesitation or just run for cover. Nothing like having the law reinforce the terrorisation.

In discussion elsewhere of the UK ASBO regime I've noted the 2006 UK National Audit Office report [PDF] - referred to by the UK Home Office here - that questioned the effectiveness of the Orders. It claimed that over 55% of those given an ASBO did not comply with the Order's conditions. 20% breached the Order more than five times.

The report noted that

Co-ordinators we spoke with suggested that a lack of capacity and experience of using anti-social behaviour legislation within local government legal services departments meant breaches were not always dealt with in a timely manner, frustrating the local community.

That is likely to be an issue in South Australia. As with the recent national Access To Justice strategy, it is easy for Ministers to gain media attention through releasing a positive policy statement. Good intentions are irrelevant if bureaucratic actors fail to support the initiatives, if there is no continuity in executive supervision (eg a new Minister takes over and allows his executives to rejig the performance metrics) and if there isn't a meaningful commitment of funds to put the grand words into effect.

The UK report also noted that -

The unwillingness of witnesses to give oral evidence at hearings for fear of reprisals was also considered a factor

One contact, who's had recurrent trouble in Canberra with an offender who "gets instructions from God via her toaster", commented to me last week -

My shop has plate glass windows. She has bricks. She has friends. When the police move her on she comes back. She's not going to be locked up unless she kills someone. We all know she's a problem. We can't do anything about it. Crazies aren't frightened of orders. They aren't frightened of the CCTV camera around the corner, even if it's working and even if someone's looking at it. The police aren't going to hang around 24/7 to see whether she comes to the city. Crime control isn't that simple.

It is unclear where the CRO legislation fits in with the Intervention Orders (Prevention of Abuse) Bill 2009 (SA) [PDF] that was introduced in state parliament on 10 September and passed on 1 December 2009. The curtain has risen meanwhile, on another act of justice theatre, with the comming into force of the Statutes Amendment (Property Offences) Act 2009 (SA).

That statute - promoted as abolishing "South Australia’s complicated cost-based penalty scheme" and giving "more authority to courts to consider the true price of vandalism and arson when determining a sentence" - provides for a maximum penalty of life in prison for arson, a penalty of seven years in prison for threatening to commit arson and a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison for other property damage. Anxieties about rational 'maniacs with matches' won't be allayed, presumably, by indications that the latest bushfires in WA are attributable to powerlines rather than arsonists.