After Hanson and Fingleton, jail terms need some correctional treatment

I doubt that Hanson's electoral offence fits this category, and neither did Fingleton's transgressions. I also doubt that we need imprisonment for most fine defaulters, small-time thieves, single mothers who deliberately or accidentally defraud social security benefits, and hundreds of others who commit minor crimes.

Both Premier Peter Beattie and Attorney-General Rod Welford seem to have taken notice of the outpouring of anguish concerning Hanson's three-year sentence and are considering a review of Queensland sentencing practices. But if we are going to spend public money on a government review of sentencing practices, let us at least make it relevant and useful.

We could begin by questioning the tedious proposition that more imprisonment and longer sentences will reduce crime in the community. Then we could continue by attacking what retired Supreme Court judge Bill Carter has called the mindless assertion that a bit of prison will do him/her the world of good.

In the same vein, we might want to boost spending on community corrections and seriously support the introduction of options like home detention and drug courts, which come with treatment programs.

And if Welford is really adventurous, he might also want to use any sentencing review to educate the public about the futility of building more prisons and giving offenders longer periods in custody.

I doubt any such review will consider these questions. This is a tragedy, because the Hanson case raises fundamental issues about aims of sentencing and especially the purposes of imprisonment in a society that professes to be modern and civilised.