Talk:Punishment in Australia

Call to attention for lack of diverse discussion on Private prisons section

The private prison section currently does not display a diverse range of the views held on the practicality of private prisons. The current paragraph only refers to one source which is a pro-privatisation article by a person who worked as a private prison operator. This is not representative of the differing opinions held about privatisation of prisons, and creates a false image of the unequivocal positivity of prison privatisation. I suggest the paragraph be extended or modified to include a range of views, such as the following University of Sydney report proposing a halt to the privatisation process in Australia: https://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/269972/Prison_Privatisation_in_Australia-_The_State_of_the_Nation_June_2016.pdf

Zambz (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I altered the section to indicate that Anastasia is a former private prison sector worker, and cleaned up the wording to indicate that she was arguing those points. The paragraph below on community corrections being supposedly better than private prisons still needs better sourcing (to me it looks like an ABS/government article that's been improperly cited). I agree that some more perspectives on private prisons are needed. Revoran (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, I added some of the perspectives from that report to the article. Revoran (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018 overhaul

Did a big overhaul of the article. Added sections about stats of who is in our prisons, stats in deaths in custody, some brief info on immigration detention (with links to the proper articles for more information) and deaths in immigration detention, as well as info on non-custodial punishments and traditional indigenous punishments. Revamped the private prison section, with more info. Some other users also contributed, especially to the capital punishment section. Reordered the sections on the page as well. Some sections need expansion and references, like the life imprisonment section and colonial history summary. Revoran (talk) 07:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Large revert by user:Seraphim System

Hi, that was a lot of work reverted by User:Seraphim System. A lot of it was good information and valuable additions to the article, I feel, so I'd like to know which sources are not considered reliable. Certainly the ABS figures are fine?

I am aware that most of the references are not formatted correctly, this is something I plan to rectify in the coming days. Revoran (talk) 03:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Revoran: Sorry, I made a mistake, self-reverted (and fixed the formatting for most of the refs [1]).Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the work. :) Revoran (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

The article places undue weight on immigration detention facilities and violates the neutral point of view principle. I have removed the worst of the pejorative language which was describing immigration detention facilities as prisons - this is not a description that is widely used in reliable sources and there are reliable sources that point to significant differences (eg Groves, M. "Immigration detention vs imprisonment: Differences explored". (2004) 29(5) Alternative Law Journal 228.) The title of the article is a focus on punishment & there is considerable controversy about whether immigration detention is itself a punishment - a controversy that is discussed in the article Australian immigration detention facilities. While some hold the opinion that immigration is punishment & others suggest it experienced as punishment (eg Turnbull, S, Immigration Detention and Punishment, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.231) those opinions cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if they were a fact.

Undue weight also arises by the placement in a hatnote and emphasis in the lead. The appropriate place for the controversies about immigration detention is in that article. What this article should do is briefly note the controversy & refer readers back to the immigration detention article. Similarly if there is a need for a list of private immigration detention facilities is it should be a part of the list of Australian immigration detention facilities. I would agree however that it is appropriate to keep the section on deaths in immigration detention facilities, but as a part of the section deaths in custody.

The section about the South Australian Department for Correctional Services reads like promotion. I am struggling to see how it adds any value to the article. Find bruce (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I've just spotted your notes here, Find bruce, after doing a bit of work on the immigration detention section (after being led there from various related articles). Having reviewed what we already have on related topics (immigration detention, asylum seekers, the centres themselves, etc.) I thought it worth removing most of what was left here and putting the content in the Immigration detention in Australia article. It's very tedious to keep seeing related facts spread over multiple articles, sometimes contradictory, and/or more relevant or up-to-date in one other than the fact is actually in, so I'm trying to cut down duplication of topics as much as possible.

I'm not spending more time on this article now, but would agree about adding something about the detention centre deaths in the Deaths in custody section here - but keeping it short and with a redirection to the other article(s) - which will hopefully improve over time too. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi find bruce and laterthanyouthink. Thanks for your input, I originally called them prisons because detainees are often literally imprisoned there indefinitely and ultimately for long periods. I've found that prisons and similar facilities have various names such as "Correctional Centre" "Regional Processing Facility" "Holding Centre" "Periodic Detention Centre" "Refugee Transit Center" "Immigration Detention Center" "Juvenile Justice Centre" "Gaol" "Prison" "Remand Centre" ... That said, I fully concede that my use of "immigration prisons" was non-standard. I also concede that whether they are "punishment" is controversial. I'm happy to have them called immigration detention centers instead, and have much of the information on them moved to Immigration detention in Australia instead.

I feel a note about immigration detention should remain in the head paragraph, indicating that they are not standard prisons, that they hold people who lack/breached visa or asylum seekers, and that there are x amouunt of people being held there (November 2015 was the most recent figure I could find).

Regarding the section on the (South Australian?) Department of Corrections, I agree fully. It was there before I started work on the article and I felt reluctant to remove someone else's work. But given it reads like promotional material... Revoran (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Revoran and find bruce. I have coincidentally just done some work trying to summarise the prison and immigration centres bits in Crime in Australia (still a WIP - it was a mess!). Thanks for your comment. I have just tidied the lead a bit further, using Australian English spelling (centre, practise used as a verb), adding that Home Affairs runs the immigration centres, and decided to remove the 2015 statistic from the lead. (Out of date anyway; can probably find historical and current figures and put them in the main article.) I haven't got time to look at the rest now but will have another look another day. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Revoran and laterthanyouthink for your edits. I think we are getting pretty close to being able to remove the neutrality tag - the article currently addresses my concerns, as long as I haven't introduced issues of concerns to others. Find bruce (talk) 03:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Supermax Prison Section

Currently, the section in the article that addresses Supermax prisons (under the High-Security Prisons subheading) does not make much sense. Supermax prisons contain the highest levels of security, but the article speaks of how only 'low-risk offenders' are kept in Supermax. This doesn't make any sense and raises the question of where high-risk prisoners would be kept, if not at the highest of security areas. I would recommend a section rewrite. BookFate (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like it was vandalised, in September BookFate. I've reverted it. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)