Pubdate: Wed, 05 Dec 2001
Source: Sydney Morning Herald (Australia)
Copyright: 2001 The Sydney Morning Herald
Contact:  http://www.smh.com.au/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/441
Authors: Peggy Dwyer and Jane Sanders
Note: Peggy Dwyer is a solicitor who teaches criminal law at the University 
of Sydney. Jane Sanders is a solicitor working with homeless young 
people.  Note published in source.

CARR'S ELECTION STRATEGY GOING GANG-BUSTERS

New State Anti-gang Laws Simply Won't Work, Write Peggy Dwyer and Jane Sanders.

The law-abiding citizens of NSW should take no comfort from the latest 
actions of Bob Carr and his Government in their so-called anti-gang 
package. At best, they are part of a misguided effort to reduce violence by 
introducing new offences and increasing penalties. At worst, they are a 
cynical effort to win the election in 2003.

We have recently heard some colourful language about gangs marking out 
their turf and creating no-go zones in parts of Sydney. Our new Police 
Minister, Michael Costa, is being presented as a tough guy who has said he 
is intent on "smashing the back of drug lords" and ensuring that "gang 
members themselves become victims".

Late last week, Parliament passed a new act ostensibly aimed at breaking up 
gangs. It is strongly influenced by US research showing that gangs share 
certain characteristics, including identification with a particular territory.

The Justice Legislation Amendment (Non-Association and Place Restriction) 
Act will enable courts to make orders - and police to set bail conditions - 
dictating where people can go and who they can associate with. In reality, 
they are already able to impose these kinds of restrictions.

Now the courts' powers have been expanded and it will be an offence to 
breach a non-association or place restriction order. The maximum penalty 
for such a breach is six months' imprisonment or a fine of $1100.

Nobody wants to live in a community that is unsafe. Most people would also 
recognise that mixing with the "wrong crowd" is likely to get young people 
into trouble. But it is ludicrous to think we can prevent crime by telling 
friends, cousins or neighbours that they can't hang out together, as this 
new act allows police and the judiciary to do.

Carr and his Government - and members of the community concerned about 
their safety - are kidding themselves if they think these measures are 
going to have any impact on gangs. Australian research has shown that 
US-style gangs are a rarity here. The few genuine gangs in this state are 
not made up of kids hanging out on street corners - they are organised, 
sophisticated and unlikely to be rattled by this new legislation.

What the new law will do is to target disadvantaged young and indigenous 
people who commonly associate with their peers in public spaces - often 
because they have no-one else to support them and nowhere else to go. These 
are the very people that the Government has previously said should be kept 
out of the criminal justice and prison systems.

It comes during the 10th anniversary year of the report which followed a 
major inquiry into Aboriginal deaths in custody. One recommendation of this 
report was that young Aboriginal people should not be jailed for public 
order offences, which introduced them early to the criminal justice system 
and trapped them in it. Rather, the report said, efforts should be made to 
keep youths out of the criminal justice system.

The NSW Department of Juvenile Justice recently released a strategic plan 
aimed at reducing the disproportionate numbers of Aboriginal people 
involved in the juvenile justice system. In 1997, the Carr Government 
introduced the Young Offenders Act. By diverting young offenders away from 
courts and detention centres, it aims to stop them reoffending.

Have these progressive ideas been forgotten, or are we just a step closer 
to the election that the Government is convinced will be won by outbidding 
the Opposition on tough law and order policies?

Resources need to be directed to lifting young people out of poverty and 
giving them positive alternatives. This is not bleeding-heart liberal 
theory - it's practical policy aimed at making our community safer.

The Government has also foreshadowed new laws to overrule a recent court 
decision which held that random sniffer-dog searches were an invasion of 
privacy and a breach of international human rights obligations.

Carr and Costa would be well aware that "drug lords" do not wander around 
the streets, or catch the train, with kilograms of heroin concealed under 
their jackets.

The use of drug dogs in public places means that thousands of dollars in 
police resources are wasted catching recreational drug users, people with 
addictions and the occasional small-time dealer.

As a community, we cannot feel secure just because the Government says it 
is taking tough action. We should be concerned that resources are not being 
targeted at the causes of crime. Until they are, none of us will be safe.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jackl