Over the past several decades in countries like Australia, the response to crime is moving in two directions. One tack is innovative: it promises to change established forms of criminal justice, to do justice differently. The other tack is repetitive: it promises to intensify established forms of criminal justice, to do justice more efficiently, and often more punitively. Crime control and justice policies have always been varied, but as O ’Malley says (1999:176), there now exists an unprecedented “state of penological inconsistency". Alternative justice forms, such as meetings between victims and offenders, or magistrates who take an active interest in helping defendants, sit alongside mandatory sentences for certain repeat offenders. Put simply, policies of inclusion sit alongside those of exclusion in any one country, and countries vary in the degree to which their policies are tipped more toward inclusion than exclusion.