In this article, Mia Schlicht contextualises and disseminates the IPA’s criminal justice research.
The warning last year by WA’s inspector of Custodial Services Eamon Ryan that there is “massive overcrowding” in the State’s prisons should focus the minds of political leaders with a State election just weeks away.
It is no secret WA prisons are experiencing a persistent capacity crisis. Last year, there were reports of 80 prisoners sleeping on mattresses on the floor of Hakea prison.
On top of this, earlier this month there was a covert operation to remove prisoners from overcrowded cells in response to extreme heat.
Where they were moved to, and the circumstances of their return to prison, remains unknown.
In the 2023-24 financial year, WA locked up 791 more criminals, with the State’s incarceration rate more than 50 per cent above the national average. New data from the Productivity Commission has revealed WA’s prisons are now operating at over 90 per cent of capacity across the system.
This means there is likely only room for 785 additional prisoners before all prisons are over capacity — this is fewer than the number added over the past financial year.
The State cannot continue to simply lock up more prisoners, without costs blowing out.
There are only three possible outcomes arising from this mess.
The first is that judges begin handing down more lenient sentence. This would likely mean violent offenders will be back on the streets sooner, compounding the threat to community safety.
The second is the construction of more prisons. However, the State Government is $28.2 billion in debt. There is no money to build new prisons.
The third would be the implementation of comprehensive justice reform, to ensure the capacity for violent criminals to be locked away, while giving non-violent offenders alternative sentences, such as working in the community.
Today, 37 per cent of WA’s prisoners have been jailed for a non-violent offence. These low-risk, non-violent offenders are taking up scarce prison beds without producing a discernible community safety benefit. It costs WA taxpayers about $140,000 to house a single prisoner for just one year.
This means $406 million per year is being spent to lock away non-violent offenders across the State.
Removing low-risk non-violent offenders from prison is not a new idea; it has a track record of success in the United States. Conservative States, such as Texas, Georgia, and Florida, faced a mass incarceration crisis before implementing reforms that distinguished between violent and non-violent offenders whose costly imprisonment was not improving community safety. These reforms led to a significant reduction in incarceration rates while also contributing to a decline in the incidence of crime.
There is no argument against locking away violent and dangerous criminals until they are deemed little risk to the community. In Queensland and Victoria, too many violent offenders have been freed from custody prematurely to address prison overcrowding, leading to further violent crimes.
But as has been learnt from the reforms in the US, the extra space created in prisons allowed for violent offenders to be locked away for longer periods of time and to receive intensive rehabilitation services.
The reform was so successful that Texas was able to close 10 prisons in just a decade.
The community rightly expects violent offenders to be locked away; it wants to send a tough on crime message to all offenders. What Texas and Georgia have demonstrated is that to get tough on crime you also need to be smart on crime.
Non-violent, low risk offenders should be serving their sentence in the community by working for businesses experiencing worker shortages. By working a full-time job these offenders can reintegrate into the community as productive members of society and make restitution to their victims.
Not only would this address overcrowding but it would also produce savings that could be reinvested into crime prevention, such as bolstering the police presence to make communities safer.
Too often election campaigns become spendathons, with parties trying to outbid each other to capture the attention of voters.
However, by making criminal justice reform a central part of the debate, savings can be made and reinvested into crime prevention and community safety. What voter would say no to that?
