McVicar's Claim that SST Youth Policy consistent with government's Youth Crime Plan False

Garth McVicar’s claim that the Sensible Sentencing Trust lobbied for most of the content in the Youth Crime Action Plan is demonstrably false”, says Kim Workman, of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. He was commenting on the Sensible Sentencing Trust media release “Victims lobby applauds initiatives to reduce youth offending” , in which Garth McVicar claimed that ““Most of what has been announced is simply common-sense and something Sensible Sentencing Trust [SST] has been lobbying for and is supportive of.”

“Nothing in Sensible Sentencing’s Youth Policy bears the slightest resemblance to the Youth Crime Action Plan. They spelt out their Youth Crime Policy in an open letter to parliamentarians in May 2011. They recommended a three strikes policy for youth offenders, as follows:

Strike 1: Full reimbursement of damages and costs. Parents to be responsible along Youth Offender. Compulsory enrolment in sport or recreational activity.

Strike 2: As in Strike 1, plus compulsory referral to Youth Court and additional punishment. Supervised work such as rubbish and graffiti clean-up.

Strike 3: As in Strike 1 & 2 plus mandatory sentence to Military Activity Camps.

In the letter it also indicated support for the policies set out in David Fraser’s publication “Badlands”. One of the those policies recommended the imprisonment of child offenders who offended as an adult for at least one year.”

Garth McVicar’s claims are an attempt to reinvent himself and the Trust, to align with the changing criminal justice policy environment. This claim is almost as laughable as the Trust’s view that its policies have been responsible for a reduction in the crime rate. In fact, the crime rate has been reducing since 1992, and the Trust wasn’t formed until 2001

ENDS

© Scoop Media