Offenders of serious crimes are avoiding time behind bars under the ACT's suspended sentencing regime, which the outgoing Victims of Crime Commissioner says amounts to nothing more than the threat of a "butter knife".

In one of his final acts in the job, John Hinchey has taken a shot at the ACT Government, advising them to tighten up the system to bring it into line with other states.

The ACT is the only jurisdiction that allows suspended sentences for any offence, even serious assaults and child sex abuse cases — where offenders are given a jail term they do not have to serve behind bars.

Additionally, ACT courts hand down fully suspended sentences at a higher rate than courts elsewhere in the country.

In his last report as commissioner, Mr Hinchey cited the example of a 54-year-old man who received an 18-month suspended sentence in 2014 after exposing his genitals to a nine-year-old girl, buying her a vibrator and showing her pornographic material on his laptop.

"Victims see them as a get-out clause [or] a soft sentence," Mr Hinchey said.

"Particularly when they're not activated when the person abuses the opportunity given to them."

The retiring commissioner also raised the alarm on how offenders were dealt with if they breached those suspended sentences.

He said just 26 per cent of breaches of suspended sentences resulted in the original penalty applying.

The trouble with suspended sentences By court reporter Elizabeth Byrne The ACT Victims of Crime Commissioner is not the first legal mind to raise concerns over suspended sentences. In a retirement speech, ACT Supreme Court Justice Richard Refshauge said: "Revenge does not provide the solace victims seek." He was not only defending some of his own rulings, but also pointing to the most vexing question that must be weighed by the courts — when to keep an offender out of jail and when to put them away. But especially with more serious cases, non-jail options can be fraught, like the man who got a short period of jail time, a suspended sentence and good behaviour order for brutally beating his former partner. Two years later, while he was still on the good behaviour order and subject to a domestic violence order in relation to his new partner, the man's violence turned lethal. In an drug-fuelled rage he forced his way into ex's home, where he raped and assaulted her for hours, until she secretly called a friend for help. That time there was no easy out for the man who will serve the next decade behind bars and more if he does not qualify for parole. But it is cases like his that raise the most questions about the suitability of non-jail options, like suspended sentences.

In his report, Mr Hinchey gave the example of a man who breached his suspended sentence for domestic violence offences and was given a new suspended sentence with fewer conditions — to the shock of the victim.

"It didn't make sense, she was just gobsmacked with the outcome and so they're very hard things to swallow for a victim of crime," he said.

"I read somewhere that it's not a Sword of Damocles at all, it's more like a butter knife."

In another example, Mr Hinchey said a man who pleaded guilty to several child sex offences was given a three-year partially suspended sentence even though the offences were committed while he was already serving suspended sentences for similar offences.

During a police interview, the man claimed it was natural to be attracted to young male children and a corrective services report concluded he was at high risk of reoffending.

Mr Hinchey said cases like those made "a farce" of the system.

He has recommended the ACT Government limit the availability of suspended sentences for serious crimes and tighten up the consequences of breaches, with a presumption in law that the original sentence will be activated.

Mr Hinchey said the justice system had to strike the right balance between the rehabilitation of offenders and the rights of victims. ( ABC News: Jed Cooper )

Mr Hinchey also questioned why suspended sentences were needed, given the ACT had introduced intensive correction orders, which were seen as having tougher processes and penalties.

But he stopped short of calling for suspended sentences to be scrapped altogether, as Victoria has done and New South Wales and Tasmania plan to do.

"They do serve a purpose but for those people that continually appear before the courts they don't mean anything," he said.

"I see suspended sentences focused on the rehabilitation of offenders rather than a justice outcome for victims of crime."

Government failed to act on review

The use of suspended sentences in the ACT was reviewed by the Law Reform Advisory Council back in 2010 where it raised the same issues around breaches.

In response, the Government promised it would consult stakeholders, but Mr Hinchey said that was never done.

He said he was hopeful Attorney-General Gordon Ramsay would act now as Mr Hinchey prepares to retire from his post after seven years of advocacy on behalf of victims.

"There's some perception that they're vulnerable people," Mr Hinchey said.

"They're not vulnerable at all, they're normal people and they're strong.

Mr Ramsay said he had asked his directorate to begin consultation in response to Mr Hinchey's calls.

"I do anticipate I will be receiving the results of the consultation in the first half of next year," he said.

Mr Hinchey also suggested a new approach to deciding when suspended sentences could apply and said all views would be taken into account.

But the ACT Bar Association rejected the call for change, saying the application of suspended sentences was best left to the discretion of the courts.

"If you look at the incarceration levels in the ACT they are moving up and up and up, there are more and more people in jail so to suggest the courts are being unduly lenient I don't think reflects the reality of what's going on," Bar Association president Ken Archer said.

The research of sentencing law expert Dr Lorana Bartels informed much of Mr Hinchey's report.

She said she was uncomfortable with restricting the type of offences suspended sentences could apply to, but did support law reform with a presumption that breaches lead to jail time.

"If the person doesn't behave themselves they do need to see there are real consequences to that," Dr Bartels said.