The headline in the Herald Sun, 25^th November 2025, our Premier Jacinta Allan says, ‘ – government’s crime crackdown ‘sending a clear message that sentences need to be longer’.

This rhetoric is ‘smoke and mirrors’ and very unlikely to bring about a change in sentencing levels for Victorian Courts, because Courts, thankfully, should not operate on the whim of the elected Government of the day, as that would be totalitarianism, but on precedent and any variations to legislation.

The Premier’s statements are also an admission that the Government has made major mistakes, as this Government is responsible for the appointment of all the judiciary over the past decade, so they are reaping what they sow.

Many of the worst decisions reported have been made by this government’s judicial appointees. So they need to fix the problem of their making.

We know of no empirical data supporting the theory that criminals will not offend, knowing that the sentence for the crime they are about to commit has increased.

For that matter, I defy anybody to find a criminal who knows the penalty for any crime; responsibility is not their strong suit.

The Spring St boffins fail to realise that crooks, no matter how dumb their actions may seem, do not commit a crime if they think they are going to get caught, and that is the only matrix that matters or influences them.

The Allan approach presupposes that crooks gather for a pre-crime meeting to discuss the penalties they may face conducting a SWAT Analysis before deciding what crime to commit – give us a break.

Have they not heard of institutionalisation? A complex issue, but critically, the time factor of the period somebody is held against their will, like jail, will become time-irrelevant very quickly.

Whether a criminal gets four years or six matters little and has no influence on the likelihood of recidivism or on other criminals considering the same behaviour.

The victim may gain some solace, but that’s about it, and the extra jail time just becomes a financial burden on the State, requiring not only more prison beds but all the infrastructure and operating costs associated with the increased time served, and we, the community, including the victims, have to pay for that.

This should be electoral suicide for any Government, particularly given Victoria’s perilous budget deficit.

The only substantial argument for an extended sentencing regime, if it were workable in the Courts, and we argue it is not, is to afford a longer period of protection for the community, which coincidentally costs us all a bomb.

Sentencing must be related to the evidence of the crime put before the Court.

We do, however, strongly believe that Courts have deliberately flaunted the power they possess to act as social engineers instead of sticking to their knitting, dispensing justice, not just for the accused, but the community as a whole.

The answer to the crime tsunami is to provide sufficient police to not only arrest and capture offenders but also to implement a strong, high-visibility deterrence presence to mitigate criminal opportunity.

This, coupled with a serious proactive Force culture, will start to make inroads as soon as it is implemented, and we are confident that the new Chief Commissioner Mike Bush has the capacity, knowledge and skills to drive this change.

Additionally, fortunately, there is still a very high percentage of serving police who would share this view; all they need is to be unshackled from the medieval attitudes the Force has developed under a series of poor leaders.

Long-term sentencing does little to stop crime; however, failure by the courts, which seem reluctant to jail accused offenders, feeds into the adage that ‘crime pays’, and while that exists, there is no hope of a reduction.

We oppose draconian sentencing but support the nuanced use of Prison as a major crime reduction initiative. It matters little the criminals’ age; numerically greater use of the Prison system is what’s required.

Remember, every time an accused at any age walks out after facing Court and being convicted, irrespective of what they may have been sentenced to, or what orders are placed on them, the walking out from court, of itself, is perceived as a win for the crook, and something to brag about, further building confidence in the criminal class that consequences for crime don’t exist.

Even in these austere times, the Government must prioritise the financial support for Policing because unless we have a well-funded and equipped Force pursuing the correct ideals of ‘best practice’ Policing, nothing will change and everybody in this state is mightily aware that they may be the next victim.

As far as the Courts are concerned, the Government would do a whole lot better, rather than making hollow headlines, by focusing on establishing a Judicial Review Panel that has the power to manage Jurists based on performance and effectiveness.

This must be an attractive proposition for a Government that has failed in the Law and Order space; shift blame to the Panel.

The administration of the Court system is inefficient and not fit for purpose, with extraordinary delays denying justice to both Victims and accused. By the time an accused is fully processed by the Courts, many have continued their criminal ways and subjected the community to untold grief – that is Justice denied.

A Justice Panel could identify underperforming and inefficient Jurists, provide guidance, and, if necessary, impose sanctions to ensure the system becomes efficient; establish processing benchmarks; identify flaws in the system; and determine whether the problem lies with the administration or Jurists’ performance.

Similarly, an efficient and professional justice system will reduce crime, equally as well as the support for the Police in bringing perpetrators to the Court system.