Dealing with the minor issue first, the highly selective and arguably discriminatory geographical targeting of some pubs and clubs is a sop that will soon enough move the problem a few blocks. Can’t get a drink in Cockle Bay? A stroll across Pyrmont Bridge to the hotel of that name circumvents the problem with its 24-hour trading. There’s no surprise that the casinos are exempt, of course, and there are plenty of bars that are part of “tourism accommodation venues” – and what a bonus these changes should prove for them. If you think CBD pubs and clubs might be hurt by the imposition of the 1.30am lockout, balance that with the value of freezing competition: there will be no more liquor licences for the CBD. Note that Justin Hemmes, CEO of Merivale which owns multiple bars in Sydney, said he welcomed the new policy. Anecdotally, Newcastle’s more widely applied lockout policy has encouraged more customers to go to bars and pubs earlier. But the lockouts and restrictions aren’t the crazy part of the proposed changes - they might even help clean up the city a little. The mandatory sentencing aspect is a revenge law that will create a lawyers picnic, disastrous personal outcomes, potentially a boom in prison construction, yet does little to prevent further deaths and improve our immature society. The NSW government is proposing an astounding swing in punishment, from one extreme to another. At present the vast majority of punches, whether king hits, “coward’s punches”, or wild swings in brawls, go unpunished. As previously reported, of those incidents that do result in a charge, most perpetrators walk away with a feather slap. But the government now proposes to give arresting offices the power to jail a drinker for years, destroying more lives, over what may be less than earth-shattering offences. To recap, Mr O’Farrell also announced mandatory minimum sentences would be introduced for drug- or alcohol-fuelled offences, including:

assault occasioning bodily harm (two years)

reckless wounding (three years)

assaulting a police officer in the execution of duty (two years),

affray (four years)

sexual assault (five years)

assault occasioning death (eight years) Get caught up in a brawl that a constable describes as an affray and Premier O’Farrell will jail you for four years – enough to be a life sentence for many career and personal ambitions. A souped-up idiot struggling with an arresting police officer lashes out with a foot or elbow will be gone for two years. Most extraordinary is the proposed two-year mandatory minimum for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. That can mean a few bruises and scratches, according to interpretation of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in McIntyre v R [2009] NSWCCA 305.

And on the media core of this sudden crusade, the one-punch death, the legislation perpetuates an evil lottery: one in every X-hundred thousand punches will see you jailed for somewhere between eight and 25 years for what is likely to have been an at least partially accidental outcome, that is the death of the person you hit. Removing the ability of courts to weigh degrees of culpability will result in cruel and unusual punishment. And the law of unintended consequences is always at work. On the domestic violence front, mandatory two years' jail for a boozed assault will make some victims less likely to seek police help. And as others have pointed out, for all the terrible, heart-breaking tragedy of recent "single punch" deaths and maimings, they are statistically minute compared with domestic violence.

Contrary to the focus of the proposed law, the main issue shouldn’t be about revenging the single drunken “lucky” punch – it should be about reducing all the crazy punches thrown, drunk or sober, only a tiny minority of which cause death and most of which occur outside the CBD. The proposals go from bad to worse by imposing heavier sentences for a drunk. Unlike our drink driving laws, the individual is hardly likely to consider the odds of punching someone before they start drinking. And, when intoxicated, they are less likely than a sober person to be able to weigh up the implications of a reckless action. Two of my four sons have been randomly assaulted by strangers. Neither incident was in Kings Cross or the CBD. I suppose it was just luck that the punches weren’t “lucky”. In one case, the police in a country town weren’t interested. In the other, after doing the right thing of reporting it with all the paperwork involved, the only result is that my son’s name is now on police records. I asked both of them if they thought their assailants should have been jailed for two years. They thought not. Maybe weekend detention, but not two years. There also should be some consideration of whether it was a first offence. Nothing is achieved by the intellectually deficient option of particularly stiff mandatory sentencing for the degree of “luck” in a punch.

We have a societal problem of immaturity, of acceptance of violence. We consider boxing a sport – something that we would not permit to be done to animals – never mind the unmitigated brutality of so-called “ultimate fighting”. A society that condones such a fight club mentality can’t expect much when its predilections are exacerbated by booze and drugs. As for dealing with the wider drunkenness industry, well, that takes greater political courage and a wiser society, never mind the very big, very hard questions about how people become anti-social in the first place. Zero tolerance of violence across the board under existing laws would require a much greater investment in policing. Nonetheless, it would make more sense than treating a drunken “lucky” punch as something worse than any other form of manslaughter. Loading Now, where are those prison services shares…

Michael Pascoe is a BusinessDay contributing editor.