Paul,

The proportion of people jailed is close to the proportion of crimes committed. (or getting caught)

If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.

//If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime.//

Or get a good lawyer. They're often what make the difference between a non-custodial sentence and doing time.

I'm going to take a different angle on this topic, and that is, if it was any other political party making the call or the submission, I might have taken it seriously, but as it's the greens, I consider the topic irrelevant.
Only an irrelevant entity could come up with such a stupid and headline grabbing suggestion.
If an institution, any institution has certain mission statements or governing rules, and these rules have been accepted by the govt and they are historic, and they form the basis of the institutions very being, then like it or not, suddenly demanding they change their whole platform or mission statement, on the whim of some selfish, ignorant, entitled, nobodies, is not to be taken seriously and should therefore be ignored,as I have always said about a bunch of irrelevant losers, like the greens.
Anyone without political credentials or who's platform is based on a topic which has no political relevance, is no more relevant than a lobby group or protestors and merely a group with a single policy agenda, and are most certainly not a political party.
So it is that they are second tier and as such are not qualified to be in parliament.
A bunch of dreamers making some vain attempt at appearing relevant does not give them political status.
Before you can claim to be a political party you have to be a party who can demonstrate a list of issues which can help the people now in a direct way.
The environment is an ideology too far away.
It is a fantasy, anything the greens could lay claim to would not take effect till long after we are dead and cannot be tested or proven on it's veracity.
So we are asked to believe a bunch of politically inept, social mis-fits and trust them because, they so so?
I don't think so.
No, had ANY other political party authored the topic, I might have taken it seriously, but you see any other party isn't as stupid, irrelevant and arrogant as the greens.

Is Mise,

Religious exemptions do exist within our legal system.
If you were to Google the Attorney General's Department
on this topic - it would explain to you exactly what
that means. Briefly, the facts are that -
freedom of religion in Australia is allowed
in practice to varying degrees through the Constitution
and our legislation at the Federal, State, and Territory
levels. However, Australia is a secular country with
legislated separation of church and state and with no
state religion.

I suggest that you also check up on Indigenous Customary Law
and how that applies.

Roxy,

"Since 1992 - common law has admitted the existence of
Indigenous customary laws but to date the use of Indigenous
customary law in matters such as sentencing, including through
in circle courts, remains sparse, patchy and inadequate."

That statement clearly shews that Customary Laws exist and are applied, ergo there exist two systems of law in Australia.

Do you have trouble with English?

ALTRAV, of course the Greens would get up your nose. You always oppose any kind of progressive thinking, social justice is not in your vocabulary. Simply content to stick with your mindless conservatism, and resist all change. Pray tell me, who in your opinion is qualified politically? Bernardi, Hanson, maybe the Mad Katter is a favourite of yours.