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