Here's what I don't get.

Some critics act as if deterrence is the only purpose of incarceration.

But the existence of violent criminals who have been convicted and jailed thrice or more shows they aren't being deterred by the current sentencing system.

So logically, how can critics argue against the proposed changes, without also believing that we should get rid of ALL prison sentences for repeat violent offenders?

Brian - the critics have two easy outs, unfortunately. Faced with evidence that specific deterrence is ineffective, they may (and many, in fact, do) claim to want primarily the application of more rehabilitative options, like conditional sentences, which are imagined to be as onerous and punitive as incarceration - except more conducive to the reintegration of the offender into society, and without the messy locking-people-up part.

Second, there is a valid procedural and constitutional concern about a reverse-onus clause being over-broadly applied, and the critics don't even have to justify their distaste for incarceration if they can reasonably argue a real problem with the law itself, as opposed to its intended objectives.

(On the upside, the second thing is easy to fix if the mechanics of the idea were to be altered slightly, as Prof. Paciocco suggests.)

I was under the impression that the major objection to the reverse onus was one of judicial philosophy: the idea of innocence-before-proven-guilt. I admit, however, that I am not well-versed in these areas.

In any case, whether you agree with reverse onus or not, one might point out that the following sentiment:

"I don't imagine anyone would care if the new system kept dangerous offenders in prison better than the current one."

covers a lot of possible changes to the justice system -- including many that are more universally distasteful than this proposed legislation. You might agree, then, that just because legislation may keep dangerous offenders in jail longer, that is not a sufficient argument in favor of the legislation.

I do agree, which is why I'm only saying the reverse onus idea in itself doesn't bother me. The problem of repeat offenders preying on innocent people isn't a right-wing construct, and it doesn't have anything to do with deterrence except to the extent that being in prison or some other secure environment is a very good deterrent to injuring or killing people.

"forcing someone convicted of three violent offences to explain why they shouldn't be locked up indefinitely — which isn't to say forever — doesn't strike me as unreasonable"

Try living life as a schizophrenic. You don't get three strikes before you can be detained indefinitely. One botched suicide attempt (the voices gave me bad advice on a lethal dose -- so sue me) can lead to a rather open-ended "formal admission". And, yes, you *DO* have to prove to a panel of medical professionals that you're not a danger to yourself or others before they give you your street clothes back.

BTW, I'm not complaining -- the system kept me alive through the initial stages of coping with the disease.