Is the NSW gaol population rise a positive thing?

In the last two years the NSW gaol population has risen by 13% (quotable from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research - BOCSAR)
So this demonstrates that the law enforcers and the law are working on the level of practicality (compliance and enforceability). It also should mean that with decreased criminals on the streets that society should be a safer place (in logical theory anyway).

Source BOCSAR report April 2014


Why has the gaol population increased?-

• Strict application of Bail Act, including an increase in the amount of people on remand who may be found innocent at a later stage. (remember law reform has meant that the Bail Act has now been changed so that from May 2014 the law is now less complex and applies remand is applied when a person poses an "unacceptable risk". Combined with the fact that young people can now apply for Bail more than once means that less people should be in remand and thus in gaol.)
• It appears that society and thus court attitudes have hardened towards sexual assault meaning more people are spending custodial time for this offence.
• Policing practices and amount of resources available to police.

So in conclusion is the increase a positive in the long term?
Aspects to consider-

• Our gaols are effectively overcrowded which reduces the ability for rehabilitation and increases the likelihood of recidivism.
• The cost of gaol is expensive $119 a day and needs to be balanced against the benefit to society. Whilst deterrence and retribution exist as important purposes of punishment gaol lowers the ability of rehabilitation to be successful.
• What is interesting is that there is considerable evidence that crime in most categories has fallen. This means the reason for more people in gaol is due to policing and the courts not people committing more crimes.

Overall whilst gaol as a punishment may reflect the desire for justice which for many in society is represented by locking someone up the long term ethical consideration and benefit for society must be balanced against a 'get tough approach'. This tension or clash must be balanced by the judiciary who can never satisfy everyone.

Unconscionable conduct- what is it?

When a person is desperate to get money prior to being paid but they know in 2 weeks they will be able to access the money what do they do?
Well for some people they would suffer quietly.
Others well they go to a payday lender who they then repay when they are paid.
Apart from the interest charge no major issue in a capitalist, cruel world.

What if the person taking out the short term loan is on Centrelink payments as their main form of income and is sold consumer credit insurance. The insurance then covers if you are sick, ill or unfit for work and cannot repay the loan on time.

When consumers are sold insurance and are highly unlikely to not use the insurance or the loan conditions do not take into account the financial position of the borrower this is considered to be 'unscionable'.
The Australian Securities and Investment Commission states taht unconscionable is beyond harsh and unfair, it actually involves deliberate misconduct.

This could mean-

• Taking advantage of the other parties position (e.g CBA v Amadio 1983)
• Use of unfair influence
• Acting in good faith  (ACCC v Lux 2013)
• Unfair tactics by the stronger party

So in a recent case involving two payday lenders the Federal Court found that The Cash Store and Assistive Finance Australia had engaged in unconscionable conduct.
see Federal Court shoots down payday lender.

This case demonstrates increased enforeability, compliance to the law and the protection of the National Consumer Credit Act 2009.