The incongruity stems from the ‘Hairy-chested’, get tough on High-Risk Drivers (HRD’s) (Hoons) approach, announced by VicPol. The box-them-in intercept strategy and the alleged direction by the Force to its members to issue warnings to young offenders rather than charge them.
There is nothing wrong with police reviewing their approach to intercepting High Risk Drivers (HRD), but the strategy should favour targeting effectiveness over more violent resolution.
Additionally, calling these drivers Hoons slips easily off the tongue, but call them for what they are: High-risk Drivers (HRD), and remove the attraction for idiots and criminals to aspire to the title ‘Hoon’ that can be worn as a badge of honour, particularly amongst the juvenile cohort, as they currently do when given bail or a non-custodial sentence: ‘I beat it’.
Moreover, the strategy of ‘boxing in’ does nothing to reduce the number of incidents, as the HRDs’ egos usually transcend their ability, and many will believe they can beat the police.
No crook ever intends to get caught as inane as some of their actions may be.
Banks never got robbed if a uniformed police officer was at the front door.
Just look at the last time the Force tried to flex its muscle.
The transition from the traditional Blue to Black (Salute Blue) in 2012/13 for the Victoria Police uniforms was to project a more ‘authoritative image’, a ‘tougher look’, and look at where that got us with the crime rate: more authoritative, tougher, balderdash.
Coincidentally, that marked the precursor to the crime tsunami we are now lumbered with and the real cause of the seemingly endless incidents of HRD events.
While the get-tough on HRDs is underway, the Force has issued an edict apparently to direct members to warn children and not prosecute.
A sceptic may conclude this is simply a strategy to reduce reported juvenile crime figures, with nothing to do with reducing Juvenile crime.
This creates the incongruity.
Is the Force hooked on the premise of locking them up, or is letting offenders get away with crime their current philosophy?
Either strategy is fraught with problems and unlikely to have the desired effect on crime rates or, more importantly, the feeling of safety the Victorian community enjoyed before the crime tsunami.
This youth strategy is not compassion but capitulation.
Surrendering to the Police’s failures in youth and juvenile justice more generally.
This latest edict re youthful offenders flies in the face of another frustration the Police have.
Political interference in operations, and we all saw where that got us during COVID.
Sworn Police members have a historical and legislated right to exercise discretion, and that power rests with the individual member; to place this instruction as a blocker to discretion is the same as the Government interfering in Police operations.
Police take an oath of Office that brings with it responsibilities and obligations; it is the application of these obligations and responsibilities that defines good Policing and, in particular, good police.
Again, these latest edicts seem to further remove responsibility from perpetrators, and the principle of accountability for actions is again swept aside. Until we can impose accountability, we might as well be ‘whistling in the wind’, as tangible results will be elusive.
When dealing with the HRD, the Force should focus on the car, not the perpetrator. In this new age of technology, the answer already exists: the ability to immobilise vehicles remotely.
Frustratingly, a strategy to reduce the danger of intercepts exists and has been ignored by Police for years: disabling the vehicle, improving police effectiveness, reducing danger to the public, and, importantly, in the case of stolen vehicles, reducing the cost to victims, as no insurance covers like-for-like replacements. See https://caainc.org.au/the-g-tag-a-new-paradigm-in-community-safety/
Once a criminal or simply a HRD driver loses the ability of the car to operate, their whole being and purpose are removed, whether that is crazy driving or criminal acts.
This approach should be a no-brainer, but a ‘hairy-chested’ approach is favoured; perhaps it makes the architects of this approach feel good, but it’s sure as hell won’t work.
Apart from the cost of wrecking a plethora of police cars in the process, a cost borne by all Victorians, can you imagine the poor victim, watching the nightly news, seeing their beloved car being driven through the streets on the wheel rims only to be smashed to smithereens along with a couple of police cars.
Some ‘noggin head’ of limited capacity was tasked with running a pilot some years back along the lines of the CAA G-Tag proposal.
Their idea was to fit cars with disabling tech and link them to the owner’s phone, so when it was stolen the owner could contact the police and give a commentary on the location and direction of the vehicle so it could be intercepted.
A couple of major flaws not thought through.
- The owner is likely to be severely stressed and prone to inaccuracies.
- While attempting to help police, they are trying to figure out how to get to work tomorrow or get the kids to school or, for that matter, how to survive and at what cost without a car.
- And unless practised, they may find it difficult to operate two functions of their phone: vehicle location software and communicating that data with Police.
The pilot was doomed to fail as owners lost interest because they weren’t attracted to doing the police’s job for them.
The pilot may have been more effective if its architects had bothered to chat with the CAA.
The next logical expectation from the pilot managers would be for the owner to chase the perpetrator and make a citizen’s arrest. Policing becomes more efficient, and the crime rate drops, or that might be the rationale of the ‘noggin head’.
But the best solution VicPol can come up with is the box-them-in strategy: more vehicle damage, more police cars wrecked, and for what? The crims will nick another car as soon as they are bailed.
Removing the usefulness of the essential equipment (a vehicle) used by criminals is the most cost-effective way to reduce crime. Particularly juvenile crime. If they grab a car and it is shut down, it becomes useless to them and is discarded.
In relation to the second edict of police being instructed to issue warnings, it is arrant rubbish and only supports the non-effect of the courts not holding children to account for their actions; a really dumb approach.
Placing the onus on members is again unfair, as they will inevitably lean towards a warning rather than risk vexing their superiors, who were probably nowhere near the scene; these views and instructions lack first-hand experience of the particular offending and its real impact on the perpetrators’ victims.
If the Victoria Police hierarchy believes a field warning deters a child, as they say in ‘The Castle’, “You got to be dreamin’.”
It only takes a cursory look at the effectiveness of the stern warnings handed out by the judiciary in the Courts. “Was that the fifth time or the sixth time you have offended and this is your seventh, last chance; yep, more ‘whistling in the wind’, and as effective.
It is somewhat embarrassing how the Force at times does not understand human behaviour, and for a people’s business, that is a serious anomaly.
Understanding a particular facet of human behaviour should underpin all policy and strategic decisions at the corporate level.
Children under one year old start to learn that certain actions have consequences, and that can be as simple as touching something hot; the consequences are unpleasant, and the likelihood of repetition is extremely low. As much as parents teach children within the home environment, they do teach themselves a lot.
Fast forward to retirement, and an older person using a drill press intermittently, fails to secure the workpiece properly, and it slips, spinning at the speed of the drill and taking some bark off the luckless operator’s knuckles. A repetition of that risk and consequence is highly unlikely.
There are a plethora of examples throughout life that mould everyone’s behaviour.
This process breaks down with third-party interference, where behaviours or actions are excused, forgiven, or ignored, so the valuable lessons that lead to responsibility for one’s actions and accountability for the consequences are lost.
The Courts seem not to have learnt from this concept, as recidivism, particularly amongst juveniles, shows the judicial system up as a failure.
Now Police are following this trend and will achieve the same outcome as the Courts: failure.
Warning children through the Police Cautioning Program is fine, and as an alternative to a Court appearance, can be very effective. This is primarily because, for a child to accept a Police caution, they must first admit their crime; the Courts, by contrast, are less likely to seek that admission.
More importantly, it involves the child’s parents or guardians rather than being just observers in the court process.
This system also needs attention to improve outcomes by linking the official police caution to the legal system, where the caution can be made known to the judiciary when dealing with a child.
That information should help the judiciary tailor a suitable sanction to avoid recidivism.
A Judicial Review Committee, as previously recommended by the CAA, would go a long way toward ensuring the judiciary does its job and contributes to an overall effective legal system.