The faces and names of Queensland’s slain children - Mason, Tiahleigh, Tyrell, Hemi, Matthew and Kyhesha-Lee – are etched deep in our consciousness. There can be few who have not grieved for these children, felt disgusted by those responsible for their deaths and fervently hoped for them to be caught and punished.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
We have been saddened, grossly offended and angered that innocent children have died at the hands of adults who were meant to protect them. Outrage about the leniency of sentences handed to those charged with offences relating to their deaths came as no surprise. Nor is it now a surprise that new laws aimed at putting an end to this leniency will be applauded.
The Government has done well in responding to the Queensland Sentencing Advisory Council’s report about the sentencing practices of courts and the penalties imposed on those responsible for child deaths. The council concluded that sentencing has not reflected the unique vulnerabilities of children, nor has it met community expectations about punishments that fit the crime. The finding of discrepancies in the sentencing of those responsible for the deaths of adults compared with those who have killed children outrageously smacked of children’s lives being ascribed a lesser value than those of adults.
The new laws will redefine the crime of murder to include reckless indifference for human life that will allow certain persons to be charged with murder rather than manslaughter, along with other changes that will increase the length of sentences. Opposition Leader Deb Frecklington has vowed to go further by introducing a Private Member’s Bill to set a minimum non-parole period of 25 years for the murder of a child and a new offence of child manslaughter with a minimum sentence of 15 years. Before embarking on a bidding war to see who can appear toughest in dishing out punishments, there are some truths that should be considered by our politicians. As laudable as it is that laws are being introduced to ensure that justice is properly served in relation to those who kill children, no matter how punitive the law, it will not bring those children back to us.
But won’t these laws save the lives of other children in the future? The answer is probably not. Apart from removing the opportunity for those who have been caught having contact with children during their imprisonment, there is no evidence that these laws will serve as a deterrent to others.
This is not to suggest that the new laws are of no value. Those children who have been killed deserve justice and this is what the new laws seek to achieve. But if we are to truly honour their legacy, we must look beyond punishment to what we should be doing to prevent other children being placed at risk of sharing their fate.
What we know is that for each child who has been killed, there are hundreds of others whose faces and names have not appeared in newspapers or on our television screens, who are being successfully kept safe within the care of their own families or when this is not possible, in the care of others, through the support provided to them by government and community agencies throughout the State. What we also know however is that for each of these children, there are hundreds more who do not have sufficient access to the supports they need.
As a society, we must not confine our anger to the person who dealt the fatal blow but extend our outrage to the social factors that have made these children vulnerable. It is unacceptable that there are children in our midst whose parents are living in abject poverty, who are homeless or whose lives are being torn apart by mental health issues that are often the result of their own childhood abuse. We should be outraged that governments at all levels are not yet doing all they can to make sure that the right services are in place to intervene much earlier in the lives of families before their struggles become insurmountable and tragedy strikes.
If politicians choose to argue about the severity of the penalty that should be paid by people who kill children, let’s hear them also argue, or better still reach bipartisan agreement, about increased levels of investment in research and universally accessible services to support families. That is how our governments can best prevent more children’s faces and names appearing in our newspapers and on our television screens for all the wrong reasons. That is how we can best honour the legacy of Queensland’s murdered children.
Lindsay Wegener is executive director of PeakCare Queensland- a child protection peak body representing 70 non-government organisations and interest groups throughout the state.
