• About Us
    Article Count:
  • Campaigns
    Article Count:
    • Current Campaigns


      Justice Action proposes and agitates for change in social justice policies. To achieve change we focus, analyse and publish our views as the basis for action. Report 2009 Report 2008-9 Also below is a list of our campaigns. Each brief summarises a position paper often elsewhere on the website.

      Hot issues include:

      • privatisation proposal of NSW prisons 
      • youth crime/JA Mentoring Partnership with Mission Australia for ‘at risk’ young people
      • communication rights for prisoners - access to JUST US in some states
      • mental health consumers right to smoke
      • reinstatement of all day visits for children to mothers at Emu Plains Correctional Centre

      ICOPA XII, the International Conference on Penal Abolition will be in London in July 2008. The Howard League for Penal Reform is the host. Details including registration are on their website http://www.icopa12london.org.uk/

      The conference will discuss the impact of the penal system on our communities and provide suggestions for new and alternative approaches. It will look at custody and community interventions as alternatives to imprisonment; prisons and the politics of poverty; the role of the media and public opinion; and the role of privatisation and capitalism in penal policy today.

      ICOPA XII will host international speakers dealing with the ancillary, fiscal and human costs of crime and punishment in the 21st century and will look at other possibilities and approaches outside of a failing crime control agenda.JA hosted the conference in Tasmania in 2006. We are preparing our presentation and will link with prisoners in their expressions.

      A new prison is opening in the ACT in 2008. Whilst we opposed it and are disappointed with this because we believe prisons cause crimes not solve them, a new prison in a new jurisdiction where there never was a jail, opens up opportunities for us to get the authorities to adopt fresh approaches to working with prisoners.

      We are part of the ACT Community Coalition on Corrections working with other ACT groups on initiatives that will lessen the damage. 


      Society has developed ‘tags’ as a means of identifying and dealing with unacceptable behaviour. Tagging can lead to effective personal and societal responses to deal with undesirable behaviour such as ‘racism’ and’ ‘sexism’.

      In our society, including our prison system, there has been a growth of unacceptable behaviour involving mental and physical bullying springing from such emotions as intolerance and vengeance rather than forgiveness and focusing on a person’s past rather than their future. This has lead to sections of society literally going to war against individuals (John Lewthwaite is an example of this).

      To combat this type of behaviour, we are looking to create a tag that will instinctively describe with a view to deploring this type of behaviour. 

      Last year in NSW, for the first time in 16 years, a ban was imposed on Christmas Day visits to prisoners after industrial action was taken by the prison officer’s union, when the Department refused to pay the overtime rate demanded by them. The suffering this caused not only to prisoners themselves but in particular, their wives and children was considerable. Over 2600 prospective visitors in NSW were affected. JA is working with church groups to get Christmas Day visits reinstated. 

      There has been a disturbing and growing trend for prison authorities to ban prisoners from having access to legitimate published materials that are freely available in the community.

      Recent examples include the banning of prisoners in some states from receiving ‘How to Vote’ cards at election times which is seen as clearly unconstitutional and the banning of our nationally published newspaper Just Us from prisons in 3 states (5 states and territories allow it in). Our newspaper has been distributed nationally in all prisons in all states and territories for many years (previously under the masthead, Framed).

      In NSW we took legal proceedings in the Supreme Court late last year seeking an order that a ban imposed on its distribution in NSW prisons by Corrective Services be lifted. We are waiting for the verdict to be handed down. We are hopeful that the decision will lay down some important legal principles on the right of prisoners to receive published materials that are freely available in the community.

      Breakout is a sister organisation to JA and for over 23 years has been accredited to supervise community service orders for offenders in NSW. During that time Breakout worked with great success with a large number of the most difficult offenders, to such an extent that it received acknowledgement as being the best agency in the area.

      Last year for no apparent reason, Breakout’s accreditation was withdrawn. Questions were asked in Parliament and a number of letters sent to the Department and the relevant Minister seeking reasons for this inexplicable act. We have recently been advised that Breakout will be invited along with all other CSO organizations in NSW to reapply for accreditation. The process will commence in March 2008 and we hope that soon Breakout will once again be proudly and successfully fulfilling its supervisory role in this important program.

      The Department of Corrective Services is unique in that it is the only Department in which the government has total control over its citizens. This requires extra care to ensure that its extraordinary powers are not abused. Accordingly, it is necessary for there to be stringent accountability, safeguards and specialist knowledge in and around the Department. This is carried out in states other than NSW by the office of Inspector General of Prisons.

      The office of Inspector General in NSW prisons was abolished some time ago because the government claimed the Ombudsman fulfilled that role. In practice, the Ombudsman has refused to examine any discretionary decision made by the Department even if was clearly wrong or unreasonable claiming that prisoners must prove the decision amounted to legal bias. This is but one example of the many problems that have arisen since the office of the Inspector General was abolished. JA is campaigning to have the office reinstated.

      At the moment, prisoners around Australia generally have the right to view TV. With the coming of the communication revolution, computers have become almost an essential tool in the day to day lives of our citizens. We would like computers to receive the same widespread acceptance currently enjoyed by TVs in our prisons.

      Computers would be of immense assistance to prisoners in a wide range of activities such as preparation of defence submissions and educating prisoners through not only programs on the computer but using the computer itself. Communicating with family and friends would also be much easier and the boredom of everyday life in prison could be relieved with computer games. 
      We recognise that full internet access may not be acceptable but access to some sites through a server would be both possible and desirable.

      Computers have been allowed in other prisons around the world and we intend looking at those overseas experiences with a view to putting together a model for adoption in Australia.

      Many politicians say that the key to reducing crime is to imprison more offenders and punish them during their incarceration to deter them and others from reoffending. That is the "top down" authority approach that fails also in parenting.

      JA is of the opposite view and believes that crime is a community problem only able to be dealt with in the community - "bottom up". We know that prisons in fact cause crime. In most western countries people are more respectful of each other due to greater wealth and global communication. Real crime rates have decreased rapidly. But against the trend to a safer community has been the disturbance caused by the release of prisoners, citizens debased by their prison experience, alienated from their communities, with no home, family, job or social support. Over 60% reoffend, often within weeks of release, with almost half back in prison within two years. The cost of that failure is paid by victims as well as taxpayers. Only the prison industry wins. The successful alternatives of restorative justice and mentoring are ignored.

      It is our aim to abolish prisons altogether. In 2006 JA hosted ICOPA XI on penal abolition in Hobart. This year the conference will be held in London. Through conferences such as these and allied campaigns we will create the momentum for change.

      We are living in a society where police are being given access to more and more invasive weapons and resources to ‘control’ their fellow citizens. Examples include water cannon, tazer stun guns, glock machine pistols and the much hated APEC ‘walls’. At the same time, funding for Neighbourhood Watch programs and the promotion of community responsibility programs has been reduced or removed.
      This has lead to events such as the riots in Redfern and Macquarie Fields and the tragic and unjustified killing of Roni Levy on Bondi Beach.

      Politicians and police have been instrumental in encouraging citizens to develop a siege mentality to support the use of more and more forceful weapons of intervention.

      JA believes there is a need for the police to understand that their presence is as a service to the community, not a military force to be used against the community. The use of terrorist hype by politicians to justify more weapons and restrictions on personal freedoms is unjustified given the number of actual terrorist events. Money would be better spent on such things as research into heart disease, cancer and diseases associated with alcohol and cigarettes that by comparison cost far more lives than ‘terrorism’. 
      JA is working with concerned citizen groups and parliamentarians to press for widespread changes in community attitudes and the doing away of ‘militarising’ our police force. Instead we want to see upgraded community responsibility programs and an added focus on community involvement rather than the existing brutal controls on the behaviour of citizens imposed by government and the police. 

      Emu Plains Correctional Centre for women is a low security prison near Sydney. There is a Mothers & Children program housed in the Jacaranda Cottages that form part of the main complex. All women have to be a C2 classification (i.e. considered a ‘low risk’) to be accepted at the centre including the main complex. Emu Plains became a women’s prison in 1996, and has always had all day visits every weekend and public holidays.

      Throughout this 10-year period women would purposefully try to be classified low risk and moved to Emu Plains so that they could spend time with their children, family and friends. This is considered essential for the well-being of the women as they move towards their eventual release from prison. The majority of women in prison are mothers and therefore rely heavily on visits to maintain the bond and contact with their children.

      In 2007, Correctional Services changed the visiting regime by introducing on each visiting 2, 2 hour visiting blocks separated by a lunch break. A restrictive booking system for visits was also imposed.
      The combined effect of these changes has been to severely disrupt these visits and cause significant distress to mothers and their children. It is also contrary to accepted national and international practices. 
      JA has received numerous letters of complaint from women prisoners. In addition many state and local parliamentarians, churches and community groups have been vocal in their criticism of the Department’s actions and outraged by their insensitivity. Questions have been asked in Parliament and a representative of JA has even been banned from visiting all NSW prisons as a result of him trying to hand out leaflets in support of the women outside the prison.

      JA is working with those opposed to the changes to coordinate a campaign to persuade the Department to bring back the previous visiting arrangements.

      JA believes that prisoners should have the right to prepare their own food as a cultural and personal entitlement. It teaches them new skills and gives them autonomy and control over a critical part of their life. It also teaches them about hygiene and gives them the opportunity to consider food preparation as a career.

      JA intends to press the Department to introduce initiatives such as access to cooking facilities and educational programs that will encourage prisoners to prepare their own food.

      Australia’'s history, our people and our penal system are inextricably entwined. In spite of the misery the system has caused so many people, we believe we should attempt to bring into focus and celebrate some of the worthwhile characteristics that our predecessors have developed to deal with the adversity of such a harsh system that in turn have shaped our national character. Mateship, the idea of a fair go, loyalty to friends and family are examples of these characteristics.

      We will organise an event that brings history and the present together involving people from all walks of life who have experienced the prison system to reflect on this aspect of our history. We want to use the event to identify and celebrate how our national character has been shaped by our responses to such ill treatment and how we can use the lessons learned from previous generations to deal with the injustices that the prison system continues to impose on our citizen’s lives.

      Health is really an important area for prisoners. Drug dependency, mental health issues and Hepatitis C infection rates of 50% make solving those problems key to changing people's lives and futures. Or the prisons can continue as a hothouse of infection for the general community.

      Justice Health as part of the Health Dept is legally required to provide services to prisoners at the same level as the rest of the community. However it has become subservient to prison authority, lacking responsibility and compassion, allowing prisoners to be neglected in physical and mental health areas. It is compromised from the Board level to the delivery of services.

      The Justice Health Consumer Group of which JA was part from when it began, no longer has physical prisoner representation but a patchy teleconference presence. Little attention is paid to what they or other community representatives have to say. The Health Dept requires that it exist - so it does. A good example of this disdain for consumers is a movement by Justice Health towards banning smoking in prisons. This has no support from the prisoner representatives or prisoners themselves, 80% of whom smoke. JA took up the issue and it resulted in the termination of our membership of the Justice Health Consumer Group. Our removal without discussion or appeal tells the whole story. We were doing our job and were continuously told by other community members that our presence was essential.

      Justice Health needs to accept responsibility for prisoners - the conditions that cause mental and physical illness need to be confronted and prisoners respected.

      We’'ve been around for many decades and during that time have developed relationships involving trust and understanding with many members of the media. Our relationship with media organisations is one of the most important ‘assets’ we possess.

      We must never take those relationships for granted and we need to renew and update them so that they remain effective. Although many may describe this campaign as a house keeping issue, the fact that we regard it as a campaign serves to emphasise how importantly we regard our relationships with the members of the ‘Fifth Estate’. 

      Generally speaking, forensic prisoners exist in a sort of limbo between 'involuntary patient' and 'convicted prisoner' that in practice often results in them getting the worst of both worlds. Amongst just a few injustices are:

      *being denied the usual 'beyond reasonable doubt' provisions of usual criminal defendants. Special hearings operate on standards of evidence more akin to the 'balance of probabilities' used in civil cases;
      •*being denied the sentence mitigating provisions available to criminal defendants, such as early guilty pleas or expressions of remorse; and
      * the fact that they are sentenced to prison terms in the upper range of what is usually applied to those found guilty of equivalent offences.

      During their incarceration they are the worst treated class of prisoners by both fellow inmates and officers. Their release is governed not by judicial examination but by the Mental Health Review Tribunal that is a government appointed body and is open to political interference. 

      JA believes that the whole system needs to be reviewed and widespread changes need to be made to the sentencing, incarceration and release of forensic prisoners. With the help of Friends of JA, we have developed a number of significant proposals that address many of our concerns. In particular, there is a proposal currently before the government that would ultimately mean the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of when a forensic prisoner is released rather than the current tribunal. 

      Callan Park is a hospital facility located in the inner west of Sydney which has for many years been used for the treatment and housing of mental health patients. The NSW government has proposed to change its use. JA supports its continued use as a mental health facility and we would like to obtain approval for a number of cottages on the site and other sections of the facility to be used for housing mental health consumers with a view to assisting their reintegration into society. We would also like to use those facilities for JA mentoring.

      We are working with Friends of JA Mentoring and other community organisations to prepare a submission to the government. 

      The NSW government is proposing to build a prison at Nowra, about 90 minutes drive, south of Sydney. They say it is to help combat crime in the area. They have ignored the fact that there are only 152 offenders in the area and yet they propose to build a 500 bed facility.

      In common with our belief that prisons create crime, JA is campaigning against the construction of the prison, which we believe will almost certainly result in an increase in crime in the area. We firmly believe that the $130 million set aside by the government to construct the facility would be much better spent on restorative programs as alternatives to incarceration. We are moving forward with a campaign for the area to lobby locals to prevent the proposal going ahead.

      This prisoner initiative was made to governments to help break the cycle of destructive vengeance in our prisons. It was launched on International Human Rights Day 10 December 2005.

      Prisoners in the dungeons of the HRMU segregation unit Goulburn Prison, Australia prepared the statement that formed this offer. It has been presented to governments without response. It requires them to recognise the humanity of those they torture. Our prison populations are rising yet governments only notice them when they can be used for political point-scoring and fear-mongering. Meanwhile, prisoners are being dehumanised by living in fear, being denied proper visits, access to health, education, or community building skills involving freedom of association and speech while inside. On release they have nothing to return to and no skills to survive.

      Prisoners have responded with the Offer of Hope - an offer for dialogue, to help break the cycle of destructive vengeance in our prisons.

      The Offer of Hope has attracted much support from politicians and community leaders. JA is campaigning for more support on a national basis and to that end will be writing to politicians in all states and territories to seek their support. In particular we recognise the opportunity in the ACT with a new prison and the opportunity of new values.

      The Parole Board is requiring prisoners who are sex offenders to complete a prescribed program before they can be released on parole. These programs are not being made available to prisoners prior to their earliest release dates because Corrective Services say they do not have enough places available. This has meant that affected prisoners have had to give up parole time to do the courses irrespective of how well they have behaved during their time in prison.

      JA has made a submission to a public advocacy organization that proceedings be taken requiring the Department to make places available. It is grossly unfair that prisoners should have to give up parole time through no fault of their own and just because the Department says it does not have the money to properly resource these programs.

      In its submission, JA has stated its concern as to both the requirement of the Parole Board that prisoners must do these programs prior to their release on parole and indeed, the effectiveness of the programs themselves. But because there are over 100 prisoners currently affected at Long Bay alone, in their interests, we have made a policy decision to leave that issue until later to deal quickly with the immediate problem of their continued unjustified incarceration.

      There are 3 issues as follows:

      * The Right to Possession of Interest Earned on Prison Bank Accounts
      Recently the government passed legislation enabling it to retain as its own, all interest earned on all prisoner’s bank accounts run through the prison system. Around $2.4 million of prisoner’s money is affected by this decision. JA see this legislation as being outrageous not just because it effectively takes money that would otherwise belong to prisoners, but also because by allowing prisoner’s to accumulate income during their incarceration, it helps them financially and teaches them good saving habits.

      * The Right to Possession of a Business
      This issue arose because of Rodney Adler’s recent experiences when the Department announced prisoners were not permitted to run businesses. In Mr Adler’s case, they decided he was operating a business (which ASIC subsequently decided was not correct), and penalised him by moving him to a higher security prison.
      JA believes there is no legislative prohibition against a prisoner carrying on a business as long as the prisoner does not breach the Corporations Act provisions by acting in the capacity of a director of the company. In fact JA considers that to allow prisoners to run their own businesses whilst they are in prison is positively beneficial for them because it helps prisoners and their families financially as well as emotionally.

      * The Right to Possession of Ideas and Expression of Experience
      Governments around Australia have passed legislation preventing prisoners from either speaking to the media about their crimes or being paid for interviews with the media. In particular, the commonwealth has passed the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which introduces the concept of literary proceeds orders.
      In relation to speaking to the media, JA believes the public has the right to hear this information from the source itself and that there is much that the public can learn from the misfortunes of others, particularly if it comes from the person in question.

      For instance, Schapelle Corby’s experience provides a valuable social, cultural and educational opportunity, which is most certainly in the public’s interest. She should have the right to tell her own story. By the same token, by preventing prisoners from talking about their experiences, the public are prevented from hearing the prisoner’s side of the story. The prohibition on David Hick’s speaking about his experience is an obvious example of this. In this way, the legislation impacts on freedom of speech and should be abolished. In relation to being paid for interviews, the blanket prohibition that currently exists can unfairly impact on prisoners with a legitimate story to tell particularly those who are in need of financial assistance.

      JA is currently preparing a report on the issues with a view to taking further action. 

      JA believes that in order to judge what is an acceptable level of intervention from law enforcement authorities in our society, regard needs to be had to what our society regards as acceptable risks in our day to day lives.

      For instance cancer, which kills tens of thousands of people every year is not funded to the same extent as ‘the war on terrorism’ that kills few (a good example is the $7.5 million spent so far by the AFP on the Haneef enquiry – would that money have been better spent on cancer research?). Other aspects of our lives involving risk that we tend to regard as acceptable based on the small amounts of public monies spent on risk reduction, include the use of motor vehicles, smoking and catching diseases such as the flu or aids.

      We’d like to see some balance brought back into arguments about increases in police powers based on what we as a society, regard as acceptable risks. As a starting point, we believe society should focus more on tolerance of differences in our society than emotional calls by politicians for increases in police power. 

      The HRMU at Goulburn is probably Australia’s most brutal prison. It contains segregation units, and employs solitary confinement as a means of punishing and subduing prisoners.
      Worst of all, its activities are unmonitored by independent sources.

      If Australia has a facility to compare with Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib , HRMU is it. JA is outraged that such a facility is permitted to exist in a supposedly civilised society.

      Our ultimate aim is to have the facility closed altogether. In the short term we are campaigning for independent monitoring of the prison and the prisoners themselves and a commitment by the government to ensure the facility complies with recognised international standards prescribed by the United Nations. 

      There is a significant stigma in society against sex offenders. JA believes that in comparison to other offenders they are disproportionately demonised by both society and its regulators. In many cases penalties imposed on sex offenders for relatively minor offences are far more severe than those imposed on offenders who commit the most violent of crimes. In addition, the dependence of the Parole Board on treatment programs which anecdotally are of questionable effect and in some instances, create more problems than they solve needs to be examined.

      JA is working with experts in the area preparing a paper that will suggest a better way to deal with sex offenders and community values. 

      The NSW Department of Health has set up a taskforce with a view to ‘the implementation of NSW smoke free policies in NSW mental health inpatient facilities’. Several mental health professionals and advocacy groups have contacted JA to seek our assistance in opposing this proposal.

      JA strongly believes that to impose such a ban on a particularly vulnerable section of society when it will not impose the same ban on the larger community, is not only undemocratic but also imposes a disproportionate level of suffering on those who are already suffering enough. We have been provided with considerable evidence of the benefits of smoking for mental health patients when combined with smoke free areas to protect the health of those that do not smoke.

      In our submission, it would be far better for the Department to introduce non smoking education programs and tools such as nicorettes and patches for mental health patients in these institutions, than banning smoking altogether. In conjunction with the people and organizations that have contacted us, we have prepared a response in the form of a submission to the Taskforce.

      JA believes it is only a matter of time before an attempt is made to ban smoking in prisons. Many of the arguments that apply to smoking in mental health institutions also apply to prisons. We are prepared for the fight should it be necessary.

      JA always has included victims of crime as part of our community representations and featured them and their concerns in articles on our website.

      We are anxious to understand and ‘get across’ issues involving victims because we believe that for restorative justice to be truly effective the needs of the victims must be properly addressed. We intend working with Friends of JA to identify and prioritise those issues to incorporate them into our mentoring and awareness programs. 

      Prison violence is a major issue among prisoners and is one that requires urgent attention. JA aims to campaign against prisoner violence, making prisons safer for inmates. Current projects we are working on include the deaths in custody of inmates Craig Behr and Scott Simpson. JA has applied to the coroner’s court to participate in the upcoming second inquest of Craig Behr.

      Late last year, as a result of proceedings in the High Court that JA helped initiate, prisoners serving sentences of 3 years or less in all states and territories of Australia were returned the right to vote. Despite the decision, in a number of states the prison authorities refused to allow the distribution of ‘How to Vote’ cards. Additionally, prisoners had practical problems in enrolling to vote from prison, particularly in proving their identity.

      A submission has been sent to the Australian Electoral Commission asking that prisoners be permitted to use their prisoner identification cards as proof of identity and that a separate toll free enquiry line be established between prison wings in all prisons and the AEC. Further attempts to allow How to Vote cards into prisons will continue.

      Many prisons in NSW employ prisoners on a commercial basis to perform services in workshops such as curtain making, electrical and trade workshops and food preparation. These activities earn income for the government.

      Prisoners are paid a pittance for their services and do not enjoy the usual protections offered to other workers in NSW such as workers compensation. In addition, many have prison ‘privileges’ withdrawn if they do not work or if they are sacked from work. This could range from being denied access to family and visitors (or being only allowed ‘box’ visits where they can see but not touch their visitors), to being locked up in their cells when other prisoners are working through to being transferred to higher security jails with limited freedoms. These practices create a virtual slave work force.

      JA has been working with Unions NSW for an agreement covering all workers in NSW prisons that will address these concerns and also put in place a right for prisoners to have access to education.

      JA has been approached by Mission Australia to conduct a series of mentoring workshops for many young people in the Campbelltown/Hornsby area of Sydney, who have been identified as being at risk of becoming offenders.

      JA mentors are putting together a presentation to be given progressively to groups of these young people starting in April 2008. The presentation is designed to assist them to understand the consequences of their actions based on our experiences and work through ways to ensure they do not offend. We want to encourage them to develop personal and social skills so that they can move forward with their lives in positive and productive ways. 

      There is currently before the NSW Parliament a proposal, which if passed into law would allow the names of all children who have committed offences to be published by the media. The object of the legislation is to discourage children from committing offences by knowing they will be publicly named and shamed. JA has taken a very strong view that the legislation should not proceed. We were invited to make a submission to the Legislative Council Law and Justice Committee.

      We appeared before that committee on 20 February 2008 to present our submission in person and answer questions from committee members. Our major submission was that the emphasis in dealing with juvenile offenders should not be on naming and shaming but be placed on restorative programs and, in particular, JA Mentoring. The committee showed considerable interest in our mentoring program and we were able to describe in detail how it worked and its many successes.

      Article Count:
    • Past Campaigns
      Article Count:
    • Media Releases

      Justice Action welcomes the media. If there are any inquiries, please call us on 02 9283 0123. 

      For the full archive of Media Releases click here

      Article Count:
    • Initiatives
      Article Count:
      • Justice Reform Initiatives

        Justice Reform Initiatives

        seed sprouting3

        Four ways to reduce recidivism.

        Four programs to improve our justice system.

        Passing from passivity to engagement.

        How we can make our justice system work better.

        How we can make our justice system more effective.

        The current penal system is costly, ineffective and dehumanizing. This is how we can improve it.

        Justice Action has prepared a package of four draft research papers. They represent a new paradigm of prisoner responsibility dealing with the issue of recidivism. 

        We encourage and support prisoners to take initiative in their rehabilitation and accept responsibility for their own lives. In the current prison environment prisoners are conditioned to become submissive. For significant positive cultural change it is necessary to have a more active strategy.  There should be a focus on prisoners seeking skills to facilitate their reintegration, enabling them to become productive members of society after release.

        Justice Action is in the process of distributing these papers to a wider audience in order to promote the physical implementation of our empirically based recommendations. The four papers can be accessed by the following links:

        1. Restorative Justice

        This research paper challenges the critical view of Restorative Justice currently portrayed in the media. We believe in its merits as a community-focused response to crime, which emphasises building social cohesion and reducing re-offending by encouraging prisoners to take responsibility for the effects of their behaviour. This paper analyses the effectiveness and rationale of therestorative justice system…read more.  

        2. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

        With the use of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), re-offending rates can drop by up to one third. The current national and international view is that such programs are the most successful and cost-effective means of rehabilitation. However, in practice CBT is under-utilised, and its scope is restricted to the final stage of a sentence. This paper proposes an on-going as well as community-based method for implementing CBT, providing positive and long-term effects…read more.

        3. Remission

        In response to the passivity of prisoners awaiting the expiration of their prison term, we have developed a research paper on Remission – a system that uses reductions in prison sentences as an incentive for good behaviour and self-improvement within prisons. By allowing prisoners to have some control of their own future, they develop a sense of responsibility and are given an incentive to serve their sentence productively with a mindset of moving forward. This paper analyses its use and success…read more.

        4. Computers in Cells

        Education is proven to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Computers in cells provide prisoners with the ability to participate in training and educational programs, as opposed to the inactivity and boredomgenerated by access to limited technology such as television. This paper has been adopted internationally but its implementation has been slow locally, despite agreement on all sides of politics that it is correct and overdue…read more.


        Article Count:
      • Restorative Justice
        Article Count:
      • Remission
        Article Count:
      • Computers in Cells
        Article Count:
  • State Intervention
    Article Count:
  • Prisons
    Article Count:
    • Failure of Imprisonment



      - Former Inspector attacks prison building

      Failure of Imprisonment

      Justice Action is against recent government proposals to develop new correctional centres across the country. Prisons merely breed more crime; we are of the view that funds used to construct new correctional facilities should be redirected towards important community needs such as education, health, post release programs, public housing, transport, and rehabilitation facilities across the country. Spending money in these areas would provide community service opportunities as an alternative to incarceration. 

      Imprisonment as a form of social control has not been fulfilling its purpose. Despite the decreasing crime rates,there has been an increase in prison population. The national imprisonment rate was 196 prisoners per 100,000 adult populations, a 6% increase from 186 prisoners per 100,000 adult populations in 2015.This has caused serious overcrowding in prisons, which leads to several negative consequences including: increased monetary cost, reduced work opportunities, inadequate healthcare services and decreased family contact as discussed in the Inspector’s Report. Each of these outcomes greatly impacts the life of the prisoners and increases the chance of recidivism. The increased prison population creates a huge financial burden on society. According to Supreme Court Judge Chirstine Wheeler, a prisoner’s average cost per year is $100 000, and other costs such as staff wages and maintenance will only rise.3

      Recidivism has worsened as of the year ended 30 June 2014, with 45.8% of released prisoners returning to prison and 50.3 per cent to Corrective Services, within two years.4 These statistics all point to one thing: imprisonment is not working.

      The prison culture removes offenders from their everyday lives, impacting not only themselves and their families but also the whole community. There is little opportunity or encouragement to change. For any cultural and personal change it is necessary to have an active strategy, in which non-serious offenders are allowed back into the community to rehabilitate, and seek a more restorative justice process to heal the damage to their victims, the community and to themselves. These alternatives to imprisonment will reduce the resources strain on our community and allows them to be better distributed towards rehabilitative facilities. 

      Justice Action views as vital the right of all prisoners to have their health needs met in the most culturally specific and accessible manner possible. To that end, Justice Action negotiates with and lobbies government and health service providers to prisoners. 

      Therefore, alternatives to prison should be considered to reduce the number of prisoners, which subsequently improves the quality of prison life while also lowering the financial costs to society. 

      [1]Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4510.0 Recorded Crime – Victims Australia, 2014, <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0~2014~Main%20Features~Victims%20of%20Crime,%20Australia~4>.

      [2]Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4517.0 Prisoners in Australia, 2015, <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4517.0>.  

      [3] Sarah Kimmorley, Australia put more people in jail than ever before in 2015 and its costing taxpayers 2.6 billion, Business Insider Australia, <http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-put-more-people-in-jail-than-ever-before-in-2015-and-its-costing-taxpayers-2-6-billion-2015-6>.

      [4] NSW Auditor General, NSW auditor general's report to parliament (Law and Order 2015), <http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/ArticleDocuments/575/01_Volume_Seven_2015_Full_Report.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y>.

      Article Count:
    • Prison Issues
      Article Count:
      • Access to Justice

        Access to Justice

        Article Count:
      • Indigenous People
        Article Count:
      • Youth

        The subject of youth crime has been one of much public debate over the last few years.  Statistics demonstrate that many youths who resort to crime face serious social and economical marginalisation.  Justice Action believes that major changes have to be made to the current youth justice system in order to combat these ongoing concerns.

        Article Count:
      • ICOPA

        icopa hall    
        ICOPA XIV - JA in Trinidad

        Article Count:
      • Art

        Art in Prison is a developing project that documents the history of Prison Art as a genre, exploring its impact as an effective therapeutic and rehabilitative tool that offers a form of communication that transcends narrow perceptions. Inclusive of creations by prisoners and contributions from the justice community, this Report is intended to stimulate discussions around Prisoner Art.



        Article Count:
      • Health
        Article Count:
      • Privacy
        Article Count:
      • Women
        Article Count:
      • Smoking in Prison
        Article Count:
      • Conditions
        Article Count:
      • Disability
        Article Count:
      • Deaths in custody

        Deaths in Custody  

        David Dungay Jr death in custody inquest

        Deaths in Custody are an expression of the ultimate failure in the duty of care of police and corrective services when they isolate people from their support. Despite the clear mandate of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the investment of hundreds of millions of government dollars, the deaths continue uninterrupted. 

        The sharp increase in the numbers of Aboriginal deaths in custody indicates that the recommendations of the Royal Commission are not being properly implemented and continues to reflect the grossly disproportionate representation of indigenous peoples within the criminal justice system. 

        Single cell
         accommodation as an option giving privacy and safety is recommended by "The Standard Guideline for Corrections in Australia 2012". Frank Townsend, Scott Simpson, Craig Behr are some of the victims of forced shared cells



        Tracy Brannigan’s avoidable death in custody marks the loss of a loved one and must force change in the prison system. She was owed a duty of care but rather than accepting responsibility, they isolated her in a cell away from her family and support. Their callous indifference caused her death.

        Tracy Brannigan's case and Inquest raised issues that haven't yet been addressed, despite the wide distribution of the Tracy Brannigan Action Plan.


        2006 Prisoner Statistics
        2005 Prisoner Statistics 



        Recommendation 41 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody defines a death in custody as follows:
        (i) the death wherever occurring of a person who is in prison custodyor police custody or detention as a juvenile;
        (ii) the death wherever occurring of a person whose death is caused or contributed to by traumatic injuries sustained, or by lack of proper care whilst in such custody or detention;
        (iii) the death wherever occurring of a person who dies or is fatally injured in the process of police or prison officers attempting to detain that person; and
        (iv) the death wherever occurring of a person who dies or is fatally injured in the process of that person escaping or attempting to escape from prison custody or police custody or juvenile detention.

        Article Count:
    • Privatisation
      Article Count:
    • Alternatives to Imprisonment
      Article Count:
  • Mental Health


    Article Count:
  • Directory
    Article Count:
  • Publications
    Article Count:
    • Just Us
      Article Count:
    • Release Issues

      Justice Action is involved; we do a lot of work to fight for what we think is right. Check out our archive of current and past reports from campaigns.

      Article Count:
    • Framed
      Article Count:
  • Contact
    Article Count:
  • Uncategorized
    Article Count:
  • Newsflash
    Article Count:
  • Computers In Cells Project
    Article Count:
  • External links
    Article Count:
  • Alternatives to Imprisonment

    Sun grass   

    Imprisonment as a form of social control has not been fulfilling its purpose. Despite the decreasing crime rates[i], there has been an increase in prison population.[ii] Recidivism has worsened as of the year ended 30 June 2014, with 45.8% of released prisoners returning to prison and 50.3 per cent to Corrective Services, within two years.[iii] As a response to this disappointing trend, these six research papers on alternatives to imprisonment have been prepared. The main focuses of these papers are Justice Reinvestment, Restorative Justice, Mentoring, Intensive Corrective Orders, Electronic Monitoring and Home Detention. These alternatives aim to build the community instead of isolating vulnerable individuals without benefiting the victims.

    Recently, prison populations were at a record high of 36, 122 in September 2015, an increase of 22.8% since Sept 2012 with no sign of slowing.[iv] This has caused serious overcrowding in prisons, which leads to several negative consequences including: increased monetary cost, reduced work opportunities, inadequate healthcare services and decreased family contact as discussed in the Inspector’s Report. Each of these outcomes greatly impacts the life of the prisoners and increases the chance of recidivism. The increased prison population creates a huge financial burden on society. A prisoner’s average cost per day in 2008 is $207, and other costs such as staff wages and maintenance will only rise.[v] Therefore, alternatives to prison should be considered to reduce the number of prisoners, which subsequently improves the quality of prison life while also lowering the financial costs to society.

    As opposed to the punishing concept of imprisonment, alternatives that focus on rehabilitation should be considered in order to help the offenders reintegrate into society and reduce reoffending. People are thrust into the hostile prison environment, which puts them in a negative and fearful situation that does not promote self-reflection and learning. Alternatives such as restorative justice attempts to reconcile the offender with the victims and society, providing a conducive and forgiving environment for offenders to learn from their mistakes.

    These alternatives are not mutually exclusive, and could be used in conjunction during a court sentence. Coercive measures such as ICO can be used together with more supportive methods such as mentoring to provide punishment while also encouraging rehabilitation. This reduces the opportunity cost of being locked in a confined space and allows offenders to reflect and improve on themselves to have a better life after they have served their sentence.

    These alternatives to imprisonment will reduce the resources strain on our community and allows them to be better distributed towards rehabilitative facilities. These measures require collaborative relationships with jurisdictions and the practical implementation of the recommendations, further research and amendment.


    Justice Reinvestment is a proposed strategy that places an emphasis on preventative remedies by providing local communities with the resources they need to address the underlying causes of crime in their area. This strategy has the additional benefit of providing a context for the current and projected costs that flow from incarceration and highlights the many shortcomings of investing in juvenile justice centres that deliver poor outcomes for their growing populations.

    Evidence has shown that the most effective programs for reducing recidivism and providing a better life outcome for offenders are those administered by the community as opposed to the prison system. Justice Reinvestment is geared towards providing such a framework for offenders who have not committed serious crimes, thereby allowing them to rebuild themselves and contribute to the community.

    The potential benefits of Justice Reinvestment are manifold. Notably, they would involve community building through crime prevention and the funding of culturally relevant programs, as opposed to simply building more prisons. Justice Reinvestment would also be of great value to Indigenous offenders, as it would require solutions that are informed by the policy and legal factors involved in Indigenous imprisonment, as well as existing Indigenous community justice mechanisms. This community building would further aid the role of Justice Reinvestment in preventing crime, reducing recidivism, and facilitating cost savings.


    Prison is a form of retributive justice that aims to punish the offender.

    Restorative justice takes the opposite view and aims to mediate and reconcile tensions between offenders, victims and the community in a humanising way. It enables stakeholders to cooperate and come to an agreement on appropriate outcomes at different stages of the criminal process, not just in the pre-trial process, as it is commonly perceived to be. Examples of restorative justice are forum sentencing and aboriginal circle sentencing.

    Restorative Justice brings together those with stakes in specific offences in order to identify and address harms, needs and obligations as part of a healing process. It puts the people most affected by crime - the victims - at the centre of the process

    Offenders are encouraged to acknowledge their mistakes and learn from them, helping the victims empathise and understand the offender’s actions. By separating the offense and the person, restorative justice relies on forgiveness and self-reflection to help rehabilitate the offender. This helps a smooth reintegration into society for all parties involved.


    Mentoring involves the building of a relationship of mutual trust, friendship and support within which help, advice and assistance is offered as part of the process of re-building a life. Mentoring works to create a safer community and prevent crime through reducing recidivism rates amongst former prisoners. It can also work to assist offenders in gaining affordable shelter, appropriate health care and counselling and personally satisfying, positive activity

    Mentoring can involve ex-prisoners giving advice to current prisoners as they can best relate to the situation of the criminal justice client. Mentoring may include: education and training, community re-integration and financial stabilisation.


    An Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) is a rehabilitative approach to sentencing that allows the offender to serve their term of punishment within a community setting rather than a correctional facility. Whilst the official title of the order differs between state jurisdictions, most jurisdictions have provided for the imposition of a community-based order that involves one or more of the following conditions: an extended period of community service, curfews, and/or mandatory involvement in personal development and rehabilitation programs. These orders are designed to reduce an offender’s risk of recidivism by simultaneously providing intensive rehabilitation and education, which encourages positive re-integration into the community.

    ICOs have enable offenders to maintain relationships and employment for the duration of their sentence, thereby preserving the wellbeing of offenders by avoiding the psychological problems associated with imprisonment. Furthermore, it has been proven that ICOs are cost effective and reduce the rate of recidivism considerably, especially when compared to other sentencing models. Despite the fact that the focus of ICOs on punishment and deterrence through intensive supervision still compromises the wellbeing of offenders, ICOs nonetheless remain a viable alternative to imprisonment. This is given their capacity to denounce criminal behaviour and reprimand offenders without completely removing offenders from society. Moreover, whilst the availability of ICOs in rural areas is limited, this issue is practical in nature and reinforces the need for ICOs to be made more accessible.


    Electronic Monitoring (EM) can be defined as a tamper-proof electronic device that transmits signals to correctional authorities. This enables them to determine whether the offender wearing the device is abiding by the particular conditions imposed upon them. Whilst EM has limited use in Australia, it is available for pre-trial, primary and post-sentencing and for custodial monitoring.

    As there is strong evidence that EM is highly effective, it should be engaged more as a direct alternative to imprisonment. Research demonstrates that EM can reduce recidivism, facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders and is more economically viable than imprisonment. Moreover, one of the strongest arguments for EM is that its increased use will reduce the prison population. Notably, however, EM has various problems associated with its operation: the net-widening effect, the perception of its inadequacy as a punishment mechanism, and the potential faults in the EM technology itself.


    Home Detention is an alternative to incarceration where the offender serves their sentence in a confined area at an approved residence for a specific period of time, pursuant to the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999[vi].

    A number of benefits of Home Detention have been put forward for its continued practice. However, Home Detention also entails a number of significant problems. Namely, Home Detention shifts the costs of incarceration from the state onto the families of offenders. Accommodation, security, health, caring and counselling are just some of the costs these families must incur. Furthermore, these families effectively become prisoners and prison officers, as they must control the offender, re-confront any behavioural problems the offender may have and modify their relations with their friends and associates. Finally, the use of Home Detention has a ‘net-widening effect’, whereby prisons fill up regardless of crime rates or diversionary sentencing. This means that if one offender is diverted from prison into Home Detention, another who may have otherwise received a diversion will be sentenced to prison. This net widening phenomenon is especially pertinent with regards to communities in rural areas, which lack the same criminal justice diversions as urban regions.


    [i] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime Victimisation, Australia, 2013-2014 (2014) <http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features12013-14?OpenDocument>

    [ii] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Corrective Services, Australia, September Quarter (2015) < http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4512.0>

    [iii] NSW Auditor-General, NSW Auditor-Generals Report to Parliament, (Law and Order, 2015)

    [iv] Australian Bureau of Statistics, Corrective Services, Australia, September Quarter (2015) < http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4512.0>

    [v] Australian Institute of Criminology, Criminal Justice Resources, (2011) < http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/facts/1-20/2009/7%20criminal%20justice%20resources.html>

    [vi] Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 (NSW) pt 4

    Article Count:


  • get involved2
  • donate
  • breakout-logo2



Justice Action
Trades Hall, Level 2, Suite 204
4 Goulburn Street
Sydney NSW 2000, Australia

T 02 9283 0123
F 02 9283 0112
E ja@justiceaction.org.au
© 2020 Breakout Media Communications
breakout-logo  womens justice network icon logo-community