Why mandatory prison sentences are wrong

Like many such teens Chris, in the words of a one-time gang member, is looking for "a group to fit into," (Evans, J, Philosophy for Life, London, Random House, 2012, p. 194). Chris thinks bikie gangs are cool, and starts hanging out with a local group who let him do errands. One of them gives him a jacket with the gang's logo on it. This is court evidence that Chris is a gang member.

Chris isn't anything more than a gofer but boasts to his mates that he is on the gang's "committee" as he calls it. He isn't, but no matter. This boast is court evidence that he is an "office bearer" of the gang.

The gang decides to raid a liquor store. Chris is asked to act a lookout. He's not happy about this, knows it's wrong, but caves in. The raid is a fiasco: the cops have been tipped off, and Chris is arrested and goes to trial. Along with other gang members he's charged with an offence that is a "declared offence" under the VLADA.

Chris nods his head. The judge takes into account his background and gives him, say, five years with a non-parole period of three. Not too bad, he can do the time, maybe try to clean up his act, and be out by twenty-one.

For Chris, the bad news has yet to come. On top of the "base sentence" of five years, the court is required to impose two mandatory prison sentences on Chris, sentences that can't be taken into account when the base sentence is imposed.

The first is fifteen years because of Chris's membership of the gang : the jacket with the logo. The second is ten years: his boast that he is a committee member. Total twenty-five years on top of the base sentence of five. In all, a nice round thirty years.

Just to make the point that this is a throw-away-the-keys law, the VLADA stipulates that the fifteen and ten year prison terms are not subject to parole. So, while Chris may get some parole alleviation of his base sentence, he must still – and first of all - serve the full twenty-five years mandated for being a gang member and office bearer. This will give him time to reflect on the need to be wary about accepting presents, or making idle boasts.

Think about it.

Rushed through Parliament without consultation. Prison sentences mandated by the most meagre "evidence" of being a gang member or office bearer? The judge who hears the case excluded from moderating the mandatory prison sentences – no matter how unjust the judge thinks them to be. No judicial review of any kind. No parole.

Add to this: lives of witnesses put at risk. If gang members know they face such severe mandatory sentences if caught, why leave witnesses around? And if not murder, there are other ways of 'correcting' the testimony of witnesses.

Bikie gangs are a menace to our society. There are ways to deal with them without the rampant degradation of our judicial system. Guilt by association, mandatory sentences, throwing judicial processes onto the junk pile, is tick-a-box justice of the worst type, brought about by political posturing and opportunism that has no place in a democratic society.

These kinds of laws are cancers that can easily spread. After mandatory sentences, what's next? This is Australia, not Guantanamo Bay.