NOT so long ago WA Labor, to its credit, said that they were bowing out of the “crime and punishment auction”.

That unseemly spectacle where the two major parities (usually in contemplation of a forthcoming election) engage in a bidding war to see who can be the toughest on crime.

Of course the whole process is an exercise in futility, based on the discredited premise that more severe penalties somehow prevent crime, but it never seems to deter the politicians.

And that’s probably because its “tough on crime” policies enjoy a good deal of popular support in the broader community.

Labour’s courageous and correct decision not to be drawn into a chest thumping competition with the government over sentencing issues was commendable, but was probably always going to cost them electorally.

The vast majority of the electorate just isn’t ready to embrace the heretical view that our current crime epidemic might be solvable by means other than locking up more people for longer periods of time.

Labor knows this, but the legal and social justice engine room inside the party led by Quigley, Papalia, Buti and McGowan himself recognise that they need to feed the appetite of mainstream WA for revenge-flavoured crime policy.

And so last week they finally gave in. Or at least gave some ground, announcing their “no body, no parole” policy.

It certainly appealed to the “hang ‘em high” lobby, and got the anticipated headlines, but it does raise a few questions about it how it would work and whether it really is necessary.

In my experience no one in WA has ever been released on parole in a murder case where the body was not recovered.

The Attorney-General Michael Mischin has stated that whilst he was in power no one in that category was likely ever to be released. And given his iron-hard line on parole generally since taking over the role, you can probably rely on his word on that.

But apart from not actually being necessary, framing the terms of such a provision would be a very complex exercise indeed if anomalies and injustices are to be avoided.

What of cases where the body was removed from its resting place by unknown third parties (I’ve certainly come across such cases) without the knowledge of the perpetrator? Or cases where body was, despite the best endeavours of a contrite and repentant offender, not traceable, perhaps disposed of at sea or in an unknown abandoned mine shaft?

And then there are the not infrequent cases where the primary offender had enlisted the help of others to dispose of the body and genuinely had no information as to its whereabouts.

Without digressing into a catalogue of macabre situations where it might not be possible to readily locate a victims body, it is self evident that there will be circumstances where the term of one’s natural life might not be appropriate compared to much worse cases where the body is readily recovered, albeit the offender did not assist in its recovery at all.

Whist superficially quite simple, the proposed “no body - no parole law” would be a judicial dog’s breakfast.

Unnecessary, unfair and unworkable as the proposal might be, it does show that despite a temporary truce, the law and order auction in WA politics is alive and well again.

— Contact Tom Percy on Twitter on @percyqc.