To me, this is where the train left the station:

"Firstly, whether or not the number of serious offenses is actually rising, the public perceives evermore intimidation."

No. Not 'whether or not' the number of serious offenses is actually rising. This is crucial.

If the numbers are 'not' rising, then in fact, we're on to a winner. Instituting any major structural changes risks doing the opposite.

Consider the rhetoric in the US - tough on crime, prisons jam-packed full, death penalty used in certain states. You'd think this would be more effective than what the author portrays as our namby-pamby approach.

Actually, their prisons are bursting at the seems, horrifically high percentages of the population are being incarcerated and I for one, don't think that's an improvement. Then take a look at scandinavia, with cushy prisons and high welfare, and consider the difference.

If it's merely a matter of public perception, then we need to consider the media's role and so forth - there's money in sensationalizing bad news, not so much cash in the 'all is well' approach.

So before you rail against political correctness and suggest reform the system, please make sure that crime is actually rising, because I don't think it is and I'd rather we didn't bust the system if it's working.

Jerry D misses the point about dealing with inmates and the abuse they have suffered – the point made forcefully to inmates is understand the forces at play but ALWAYS know you made a choice that led you into crime. When they accept they made the choice and weren’t helpless victims doomed to become criminals’ chances of rehabilitation improves. Such a notion of choice assumes inmates are responsible.

The notion “our politicians might finally do the decent, rational and morally correct thing and start to bring sentencing in line with community expectations” has emotional appeal to me having suffered major crimes. I’d like revenge; I’d like to see the perpetrator suffer. Am I better off for this?

Mohandas Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind”. What is the outcome in real terms that seems to stir passions over justice so much?

Placing the perpetrators I have been subject to in gaol as though that was the solution on its own would achieve what for me? I see absolutely little benefit to me apart from a rather pyrrhic sense of revenge, an emotional high for those who want to make noises around the subject, little if nothing done to get perpetrators to confront the consequences of their decisions in a practical, direct sense, and nothing to divert others from such choices.

Budgets are always an issue, costs per inmate are high.

To me a debate on justice needs to:

1. Address the needs of those subjected to crimes to have recognised by the perpetrator and society the consequences of what was done – merely being in gaol does not do enough. I would like to confront the perpetrator and see they know the consequences, all the paraphernalia of the justice systems and debates around justice gets in the way of this.

Do not be fooled this is the soft option – this is harder to deal with than doing time.

2. Diversionary programs which take people at risk of offending and exposes them to the consequences – programs in the US which exposed late teens to inmates who spelt out the reality of gaols and the life consequence had impact. With teen males getting them to picture in their heads what things like rape feels like or bashings does more for diversion than a million words and talks ever can.

3. Discuss the gaol system ceasing being a capricious system with a mix of highly professional staff and inappropriate staff who abuse the power they have over inmates – keep those who are professional and get rid of the rest. The professional staff have the greatest chance of impacting on inmates’ future and are creditworthy.

4. Moving gaols to a strictly behaviourist view of management of inmates – set the ground rules for behaviour creating predictability and enforce conformity to the process of rules on inmates and staff, staff should not be in a position of using whim to decide outcomes. Learning cause and effect is part of rehabilitation for many inmates.

The required behaviour should include work and education programs and lead to rewards in a genuine sense, let those who fail to comply have but a bare minimum. I’d challenge anyone thinking they’ll get luxury foods etc to live on inmate rations for a week. Pay head to Hinch’s recent comments on home detention, the loss of freedom in itself has greater impact than those not subject to ever can appreciate.

My challenge would be for a Corrective Services Department to use a periodic detention centre to house some of the noisiest of the critics for a week, subject them to the rules of gaol and see what they conclude!

5. Removal of foolish programs such as methadone which maintain addiction and perpetrate the problems associated with addiction. The notion an addict has a choice is an absurdity but yes those who do not choose recovery are not great prospects for recovery – but contributing to maintaining addiction may produce docile inmates but it maintains the problems.

TurnRightThenLeft’s comments points to the best advice on this topic, look for evidence.

What is the evidence about the efficacy of the justice system in the US, hard on crime approach, compared to Scandinavia’s high welfare regime? Evidence should be the basis for making policy not emotional rhetoric.