Perhaps because the result is very nearly a foregone conclusion, the only realistic question being how many seats the Baird government will retain for its new term, it seems to have been contested in a staid manner. 

This is true even of the “law and order” topic area.  

State elections in the recent past have generally been characterised by an almost unseemly auction by the major parties to see who can be “tough on crime”.  

The discretion of the courts in matters of sentencing is typically one area which has gained publicity, with politicians commenting on sentences handed down in the context of community expectations.

Although it would be nice to think that the relative absence of this type of discussion during the election is the dawning realisation that crime prevention cannot be viewed simply by terms of punishment, and that there are far more complex cultural, societal and economic factors involved, I suspect that the real reason is that the dominant focus has been the proposed electricity sell-off. 

It’s simultaneously the Baird government’s signature policy and also the Labor opposition’s one significant weakness to attack.

Unfortunately the absence of the “tough on crime” auction has not led to a more constructive debate about the state’s criminal law framework, or assistance for those caught up in the criminal justice system. 

This paper has run a number of articles recently highlighting the immense strain currently placed on Legalaid as a result of seemingly continuous funding cuts.  

Courts too are chronically underfunded. Neither major political party has given any prominence to the issue.  

Every single person charged or convicted of a criminal offence has had a different background, different opportunities in life and different pathways leading to their charges or conviction.  

All of those involved in the criminal justice system are under stress, from the Magistrates having to deal with busy lists and dwindling resources, to the court staff who are unfailingly polite and respectful to all they deal with no matter how difficult the circumstances.  

The solicitors involved, whether for the prosecution, private defence lawyers or Legalaid and Aboriginal Legal Services solicitors are all striving to treat everyone involved in the process with respect and to ensure a fair and just outcome.

It is important to remember, after all, the purpose of criminal sentencing.  

As set out in the relevant legislation, the purposes of sentencing are to ensure adequate punishment, deter crime, protect the community, promote rehabilitation, make the offender accountable and denounce their actions and to recognise the harm done to the victim and to the community.

The aims of sentencing can be best served by having the best quality people involved in the criminal justice system.  

That is the most effective way of ensuring that the court reaches the right verdict and that if that verdict is guilty, that the most appropriate sentence is handed down.  

This is of critical importance to the community because, after all, those convicted of criminal offences come from the community, they are one of us.

Despite all the jokes about solicitors, and some of them are actually funny even to a solicitor, we have a professional commitment to aid the court in coming to the most just outcome in each particular case. 

It might be too much to hope for to think that issues such as this will be dealt with in a considered, nuanced way in the remaining two weeks of the state election campaign.  

Let’s try to remember though the purposes of criminal sentencing, and that “throwing the book” at someone will very, very rarely suit those purposes.  

After all, that’s the law.