Shock! Traditional sentencing has no effect

[weemadando]

I heard this a week or so back, but forgot to post it. Is anyone surprised by this?

Circle sentencing has no effect: study

Posted Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:19pm AEST
Updated Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:22pm AEST

A new report has found circle sentencing does not reduce the risk of reoffending by Aboriginal offenders.

Circle sentencing is an alternative method of sentencing that involves the offender's community in the process.

The director of the Bureau of Crime Research and Statistics, Don Weatherburn, says the program needs to be strengthened if it is going to be effective.

"I think there was enormous hope that if Aboriginal offenders were brought before members of their own community, they would sit up and take more notice than if they were brought before a white magistrate or a white judge," he said.

"As it has turned out, there hasn't been any effect of circle sentencing on the risk of reoffending. It makes no difference whether an Aboriginal offender comes before a circle sentence or before a court."

He says the causes of crime, particularly drug and alcohol abuse, need to be addressed to reduce recidivism rates.

New South Wales Attorney-General John Hatzistergos says the State Government will expand drug and alcohol treatment and make the program more formal.

"What we are doing now is recalibrating the program to take into account the experiences that we have had since it has been introduced," he said.

Circle sentencing was introduced in NSW in 2002.

[Stark]

Well this simply blows my mind, and I'm sure nobody had ever considered this form of sentencing an ill-advised sop to 'cultural values'. Certainly the government didn't simply ignore these problems for a generation under the aegis of 'cultural sensitivity', no sir.

[CaptainChewbacca]

I know many Native American tribes have a similar practice, I wonder what their results are.

[Eulogy]

This is yet another case of culture being worse than reason.

It also proves that actually changing criminals is much harder than it looks and is outright impossible in many cases barring drastic measures.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Um... Do any of you know how to read?

No effect means Null Hypothesis supported. IE. that the system has no effect on recidivism when compared to the standard judicial system.

In fact, depending on the comparative cost and cruelty to those processed through the system, it might even be better than the standard judicial system.

[Broomstick]

I know many Native American tribes have a similar practice, I wonder what their results are.

Variable. Which isn't a surprise, as the Native Americans are quite diverse with a multitude of different cultures ranging from almost destroyed to nearly intact.

[Adrian Laguna]

Basically this study says that the government can allow offenders and/or tribes to chose in how they will be processed, through the standard system or the tribal one, according to preferences, and without needing to fear that either option given will be lead to higher recidivism.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Basically this study says that the government can allow offenders and/or tribes to chose in how they will be processed, through the standard system or the tribal one, according to preferences, and without needing to fear that either option given will be lead to higher recidivism.

Yes. And it seems like we are the only two people who have noticed this.

[Stark]

What do you mean, 'can' allow? They've been doing it for ages - it just doesn't do anything. It just allows everyone to feel 'culturally sensitive' and leave them to figure out their massive social problems on their own. The decades of 'don't try to fix anything, because that's culturally insensitive' haven't helped these communities.

But hey, Americans probably thing rural Aborigines live in traditional tribal communities, and not bumfuck nowhere mining towns with welfare fueled alcoholism and violence.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What do you mean, 'can' allow? They've been doing it for ages - it just doesn't do anything. It just allows everyone to feel 'culturally sensitive' and leave them to figure out their massive social problems on their own. The decades of 'don't try to fix anything, because that's culturally insensitive' haven't helped these communities.

But hey, Americans probably thing rural Aborigines live in traditional tribal communities, and not bumfuck nowhere mining towns with welfare fueled alcoholism and violence.

And again. Because you cant read it seems...

No statistically significant difference means that the system is no LESS effective than the usual australian legal system. So no. It does not "do nothing" It does just as much good in terms of reducing the risk to reoffend as usual prison time.

[Stark]

No shit, thanks for repeating yourself. However, since you don't know the background to these decisions, you don't get that that is actually a failure; it was supposed to be more effective, through 'cultural sensitivity'. Holy shit, even the goddamn article has Australian decision-makers saying 'yeah, it needs to be improved to be effective'. OH NO! And looks like YOU can't read; the article says the cases are HEARD by native circles. It doesn't say anything about not involving 'usual prison time', just that the get judged by their tribal elders and not an actual judge. Nobody is satisfied with 'no change', except you, and I find this amusing - in NSW they're even moving back to 'more formal' sentencing, because it DIDN'T DO WHAT WAS EXPECTED.

The only possible benefits, as you say, are possible savings to the justice system for not seeing these cases and possible making them feel better about their domestic violence or alcoholism through the White Man not putting them through White Justice.

[Alyrium Denryle]

No shit, thanks for repeating yourself. However, since you don't know the background to these decisions, you don't get that that is actually a failure; it was supposed to be more effective, through 'cultural sensitivity'. Holy shit, even the goddamn article has Australian decision-makers saying 'yeah, it needs to be improved to be effective'. OH NO! And looks like YOU can't read; the article says the cases are HEARD by native circles. It doesn't say anything about not involving 'usual prison time', just that the get judged by their tribal elders and not an actual judge. Nobody is satisfied with 'no change', except you, and I find this amusing - in NSW they're even moving back to 'more formal' sentencing, because it DIDN'T DO WHAT WAS EXPECTED.

The only possible benefits, as you say, are possible savings to the justice system for not seeing these cases and possible making them feel better about their domestic violence or alcoholism through the White Man not putting them through White Justice.

Then we have different definitions of what constitutes a failure, jackass. If an alternative is just as effective as what is usual, I do not consider it a failure. Only a null change. No better or worse than what it is an alternative to. If it does WORSE then it is a failure. You could say I do not stratify success and failure in black and white terms as often as many people like.

As for the later bit, there is something to be said about those benefits. All other things, like recidivism being equal, they constitute a reason to prefer that system.

Of course, it is not as if retributive systems do much in terms of reducing recidivism anyway... The only way to reduce that is actively try to rehabilitate criminals.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Then we have different definitions of what constitutes a failure, jackass. If an alternative is just as effective as what is usual, I do not consider it a failure. Only a null change. No better or worse than what it is an alternative to. If it does WORSE then it is a failure. You could say I do not stratify success and failure in black and white terms as often as many people like.

As for the later bit, there is something to be said about those benefits. All other things, like recidivism being equal, they constitute a reason to prefer that system.

Of course, it is not as if retributive systems do much in terms of reducing recidivism anyway... The only way to reduce that is actively try to rehabilitate criminals.

I think you are completely missing the point and taking this completely out of context. The whole reason for the system to exist was because the Aborigines distrusted the legal system and wanted to do their own thing, claiming theirs is more just and more effective.

Turn that around, the study simply says that those claims are false. You on the other hand, are simply looking at the study hypothesis from the scientific point of view alone, and throwing out the political hypothesis which is more relevant to the situation at hand.

And on rehabilitation, asking the Aborigines to rehabilitate one of their own, is probably a very bad idea.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Then we have different definitions of what constitutes a failure, jackass. If an alternative is just as effective as what is usual, I do not consider it a failure. Only a null change. No better or worse than what it is an alternative to. If it does WORSE then it is a failure. You could say I do not stratify success and failure in black and white terms as often as many people like.

As for the later bit, there is something to be said about those benefits. All other things, like recidivism being equal, they constitute a reason to prefer that system.

Of course, it is not as if retributive systems do much in terms of reducing recidivism anyway... The only way to reduce that is actively try to rehabilitate criminals.

I think you are completely missing the point and taking this completely out of context. The whole reason for the system to exist was because the Aborigines distrusted the legal system and wanted to do their own thing, claiming theirs is more just and more effective.

Turn that around, the study simply says that those claims are false. You on the other hand, are simply looking at the study hypothesis from the scientific point of view alone, and throwing out the political hypothesis which is more relevant to the situation at hand.

And on rehabilitation, asking the Aborigines to rehabilitate one of their own, is probably a very bad idea.

Damn right. I tend not to give a damn about the politics. Only the science, applied in a goal-oriented, policy making way.

Whoever said anything about letting the aborigines do it? (Or hell... the broken australian legal system)

When it comes to criminal justice, I am a very vocal non-retributivist. Rehabilitation is better than punishment, which usually makes criminals worse

[Stark]

Then we have different definitions of what constitutes a failure, jackass. If an alternative is just as effective as what is usual, I do not consider it a failure. Only a null change. No better or worse than what it is an alternative to. If it does WORSE then it is a failure. You could say I do not stratify success and failure in black and white terms as often as many people like.

As for the later bit, there is something to be said about those benefits. All other things, like recidivism being equal, they constitute a reason to prefer that system.

Of course, it is not as if retributive systems do much in terms of reducing recidivism anyway... The only way to reduce that is actively try to rehabilitate criminals.

System is put in place. System fails to deliver expected outcomes, and is modified or removed.

This is what we in the real world call a 'failure'. You're so busy trying to be a smartass about ZOMG NULL HYPOTHESIS and nagging everyone about ZOMG CAN'T READ that you completely ignored the context of the article and 80% of it's context. Then you even try to backpedal and say that you 'don't care about the politics' when it's a political fucking article about a political policy about a social issue.

Whoops. Turns out you're just on your fucking 'non-retibutivist' hobbyhorse, regardless of how appropriate it is to the thread. See you next week on 'Tryhard Smartass'. ZOMG, rebilitation is better! THIS IS RELEVANT EVERYONE!

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Damn right. I tend not to give a damn about the politics. Only the science, applied in a goal-oriented, policy making way.

Whoever said anything about letting the aborigines do it? (Or hell... the broken australian legal system)

When it comes to criminal justice, I am a very vocal non-retributivist. Rehabilitation is better than punishment, which usually makes criminals worse

Since when can law be divorced from politics? And Science wholely applied to policy making? It ain't black and white mind you, and Science doesn't handle grey areas very well.

[weemadando]

Then we have different definitions of what constitutes a failure, jackass. If an alternative is just as effective as what is usual, I do not consider it a failure. Only a null change. No better or worse than what it is an alternative to. If it does WORSE then it is a failure. You could say I do not stratify success and failure in black and white terms as often as many people like.

As for the later bit, there is something to be said about those benefits. All other things, like recidivism being equal, they constitute a reason to prefer that system.

Of course, it is not as if retributive systems do much in terms of reducing recidivism anyway... The only way to reduce that is actively try to rehabilitate criminals.

I think you are completely missing the point and taking this completely out of context. The whole reason for the system to exist was because the Aborigines distrusted the legal system and wanted to do their own thing, claiming theirs is more just and more effective.

Turn that around, the study simply says that those claims are false. You on the other hand, are simply looking at the study hypothesis from the scientific point of view alone, and throwing out the political hypothesis which is more relevant to the situation at hand.

And on rehabilitation, asking the Aborigines to rehabilitate one of their own, is probably a very bad idea.

Damn right. I tend not to give a damn about the politics. Only the science, applied in a goal-oriented, policy making way.

Whoever said anything about letting the aborigines do it? (Or hell... the broken australian legal system)

When it comes to criminal justice, I am a very vocal non-retributivist. Rehabilitation is better than punishment, which usually makes criminals worse

To address your points:

- Politics is inextricably bound to law. Especially in a scenario like this with so many emotional aspects.

- The entire fucking article relates to traditional justice, which was seen as been a much more acceptable, socially responsible and indeed, more effective option than traditional criminal justice. Turns out that they were wrong.

- Yes, it would be great if that worked, but this is a News and Politics forum, and as previously mentioned Politics is closely bound to Law. I too feel that rehabilitation is preferable to simple incarceration and other penalties, but the fact is that we are in a miniscule minority here and our respective nations are both tyranny's of the majority (read: a democracy).

[Broomstick]

It was the girl's aunt. Besides, who other than aborignies lives with 17 people in a 3-bedroom house?

Um... Mexicans? (Not that you have a lot of those in Australia...)

Actually, my mom grew up with 12 people in a 3 room (not three bedroom) house. That's a bedroom, kitchen, and "front room". Parents slept in the bedroom, 4 girls in the kitchen, 6 boys in the front room. As it happens, they were neither Mexican nor Australian Aborigine, they were German/Irish.

Then again, they had a culture that valued basic sanitation and basic education (although most of them had to drop out of school before high school graduation to find work to feed the family after their father died - I believe they all later got GED's), and frowned on excessive drinking. That might have something to do with their later success in life.

That said, it's statistically more common to find densely packed households among Hispanics in the US, and in Australia a densely packed home is more likely to be Aboriginal. I'm sorry if those realities offend anyone, but they don't go away by pretending they don't exist.

One problem with the Australian Aborigines, and in many cases the US Native Americans, is hopelessness - they can't continue their traditional way of life, there is a past history of their children being stolen, and they are treated like shit by the invaders who have pretty much taken everything valuable away from them. Yes, there are successful exceptions, and in the US some tribes are doing better than others, but to pretend there isn't racism at work is to be foolish and blind.

[Lusankya]

It was the girl's aunt. Besides, who other than aborignies lives with 17 people in a 3-bedroom house?

Um... Mexicans? (Not that you have a lot of those in Australia...)

Actually, my mom grew up with 12 people in a 3 room (not three bedroom) house. That's a bedroom, kitchen, and "front room". Parents slept in the bedroom, 4 girls in the kitchen, 6 boys in the front room. As it happens, they were neither Mexican nor Australian Aborigine, they were German/Irish.

Then again, they had a culture that valued basic sanitation and basic education (although most of them had to drop out of school before high school graduation to find work to feed the family after their father died - I believe they all later got GED's), and frowned on excessive drinking. That might have something to do with their later success in life.

That said, it's statistically more common to find densely packed households among Hispanics in the US, and in Australia a densely packed home is more likely to be Aboriginal. I'm sorry if those realities offend anyone, but they don't go away by pretending they don't exist.

One problem with the Australian Aborigines, and in many cases the US Native Americans, is hopelessness - they can't continue their traditional way of life, there is a past history of their children being stolen, and they are treated like shit by the invaders who have pretty much taken everything valuable away from them. Yes, there are successful exceptions, and in the US some tribes are doing better than others, but to pretend there isn't racism at work is to be foolish and blind.

... somehow I think you posted this in the wrong thread, but yeah, I was talking about 21st century Australia. Hell, you go back a couple of generations in white households and you find people living in more densely packed homes. It's just that non-aboriginal standards of living have improved since then, while aboriginal standards of living haven't. My mothers parents (who I'd assume to be not that much older than your parents) were from small families, but they were the exception rather than the norm. Most families were more like my father's parents - both of them were one of seven children.

Of course aboriginal households are still different from the old white households anyway. Large white households tend to be mother, father, children and maybe an aunt or grandparents living there as well. Aboriginal society has this crazy-ass extended families where pretty much everyone from the same general region is considered to be related. It would probably actually be a fantastic asset for them if there weren't so many problems rampant in the aboriginal comminity, but as it is it doesn't mesh well with western culture (including initiatives to relieve welfare dependence).

[Lusankya]

Then we have different definitions of what constitutes a failure, jackass. If an alternative is just as effective as what is usual, I do not consider it a failure. Only a null change. No better or worse than what it is an alternative to. If it does WORSE then it is a failure. You could say I do not stratify success and failure in black and white terms as often as many people like.

The thing is, the normal system is also a failure in the case of aborigines. Having them go through traditional justice is no more effective than the court system. Therefore it is also a failure.

OMG! Two different things can fail!