Helen Clarke on violent, long-term prisoners

From Good Morning today:

"A lot of these long-term prisoners, over time start to change their behaviour, some become very religious."

This was in her reply to Nationals plan to jail repeat violent offender for their full jail term (if they have previously been convicted of a violent crime and sentenced to five years or more in prison).

W. T. F? Some of the worst criminals in the history of mankind have used religion as justification...

But don't let a bit of god get in the way of an idea with lots of merit.

R

www.publicaddress.net/default,5391,citizens.sm#post5391

thought the religion comment a bit odd, but she has a good point if a prisoner has a incentive to change (parole) then they might... no incentive = potential trouble for authorities for the rest of that persons life

the serious sentencing trust and those whom listen to their gibberish taking us back into a age of ignorance and darkness

Rob, leave David Farrar's talking points alone...

You know full well she was saying that prisoners over time can become rehabilitated - in some cases that happens via religion. It's an extremely valid point to make when discussing parole (or the outright removal of it).

Try it this way.

Should someone who has 100 or more violence convictions be a free person?

Not without a very good reason and a fair bit of supervision imo.

even 20 convictions should start to set off alarm bells.

Im not a fan of life means life but i sure as fuck think we arent doing the right thing with medium level violence and repeat offenders.

bob I agree - but we already have parole discretion (and the murderers get some pretty long term non-parole periods these days) and use of preventative detention.

I'm not sure that the lockem up and forget about em approach is the best. Surely an approach that allows for discretion by offender for appropriate management is better than an outright punitive one that removes any incentive for rehabilitation? ("What does it matter? I'm in here permanently regardless..."


I fail to see what it achieves that can't be achieved through sentencing and parole guidelines?

Who?

I can't see any equating religion and rehabilitation. In fact if it is known that it can influence parole, then everyone would just jump on that boat.... ooooh righhhhttt. Prove I'm not religious.

R

its vote grabbing ploy nothing more

one that will work if peoples comments on this website are any gauge of the voting public

It removes many of the chances of a lenient judge, parole board making an error... which, to be fair, have been shown numerous times to be the reason a violent offender has ended up back walking the streets.

R

At the very least, it will mean that repeat violent offenders arent in a position to do violence to people (who arent in prison obviously). While not perfect that is a bit better than the status quo.

Kiwiblog mate - you've posted a couple of verbatim things out of there recently. Just taking the piss - bob_d and I do with it PA all the time...


Kurariki is a classic example of religion playing a part in rehabilitation - the parole board frequently referenced that through "finding God" or whatever had played a part in him maturing and accepting responsiblity.
It's not a "parole rule says become Catholic = release" thing, it's just that some pretty nasty people can change their ways through becoming religious. Parole Boards are the right people to judge whether or not it's genuine and whether or not it actually has helped them from a rehabilitation/reintegration aspect.

But that's achievable through sentencing guidelines? Outright refusing parole doesn't help that, it just removes any incentive and approach for crims to genuinely rehabilitate.

Just look at this as a new sentencing guideline then.

Outright refusing parole wouldn't help I agree - but the number of our worst offenders who are in for their second or more long-term stay for the same offence says to me they didn't rehabilitate. So either the method were wrong or they are not fit to be out.. either way, the idea that doing the same thing again might achieve a better result = guaranteed fail, so it surely needs to be looked at more closely.

Either: new methods.

Or: severely restricting the very worst criminals any contact with the outside world.

Second version gets good mileage with crime hating middle NZ who know - as the stats show - violent crime has grown under this govt despite whatever efforts they've gone to to address it.

R

Anyway, the whole point of the thread was Clark somehow using the high uptake rate of religion in violent criminals as being some sort of rehabilitative success.

I'd bet the religious views of convicted criminals make zero difference to their reoffending rate.

R

solitary confinement, withdrawal of privileges = incentive to abide by prison rules

and lol at helen clark falling back on using religion as a buttrress to a political argument

perhaps to save on putting any more tax payer money into rehabilitation schemes chrisitans will be allowed free entry to our prisions to reform our badest of the bad

way better than throwing the simply souls to the lions, eh

Who the fuck is Helen Clarke?

The fact is, this National policy is good policy.
It doesn't make National the best choice. Far from it.

I wish people could sometimes see both sides of an issue.

But Kurariki wasn't rehabilitated

The fact is, repetition of criminal acts is far more anti-social than a single crime of passion. I know people disagree with me, but I think someone who commits 20 petty burglaries is worse than someone who, in a fit of drunken stupidity, commits manslaughter in a bar fight.

One is a deliberate, wilful process of disobedience to the state; the other is a single moment of stupidity.

What is the point of a sentence that doesn't mean what it says?
Why not just reduce all sentences by 2/3rds - because parole for most minor crimes is automatic.

Because it gives flexibility - it's effectively saying (and realised by all involved) that a 10yr sentence has a 7year-ish enforced period (one could call that the punitive piece) and a 3year subsequent piece that allows for offenders to be released into the community with an assessment and then closely monitored with significant penalties if conditions are breached.
Under this law, a repeat violent offender will serve the 10 years then get released. National have laid claim to some kind of monitoring after that fact but it won't be able to have penalties for breach like parole does now because the time has been served.

Parole allows for flexible, monitored, phased release/reintegration.

I will add that I agree vads that subsequent reoffending should be treated much more firmly.

I just think parole is a good tool - perhaps we extend sentencing guidelines? That may already happen in practice I suppose but would be all for repeat violent offences being slapped with a longer non-parole period and fuller use of sentencing be put in place.

I understand the purpose of parole, and it makes sense, but when it becomes a ticket stamping exercise - why bother?

It's always been that sentences are regarded as just, but the 1/3rd rule makes them seem unfair.

The PRIMARY issue with parole is that the sole concern is likelihood of recividism. This is a flawed approach that forgets the deterrent and punitive aspects of all sentences.

The problem with parole lies in the evaluation of who is deserving or not.

Figuring out who is truly repentant, reformed and deserving of leniency from the state and who is just working the system, likely to re offend.

It should never get to the point where it is an expected gift even with good behaviour or it erodes the influence of the sentences society has chosen to deter criminal activity.

Repeat offenders should have little hope of parole.

are we a vindictive or compassionate society?

revenge should not be the foundation of our justice system

compassionate - to the victims and potential future victims of said repeat violent offenders

compassionate to both victim and offender

I have no compassion for the william bells and Bruce Howses of this world that would countenance their ever walking again as freed men

No, but as said there are 3 components: the rehabilitative, the deterrent, and the punitive. You cannot have one without the other; they are all necessary.

Actually, kant felt revenge was entirely moral.

I thought we'd all decided, Kant was a cock

3 components - where restoritive?

in relation to this thread its a shame justice is an election issue (like most issues) as its a complex area that requires more than simple ideas and sound bites

Restorative is I guess related to rehabilitative.

Yes, it's complex. But people like me who HAVE considered it to quite some depth do believe that our sentences are not long enough (and, indeed, that our entire justice system is overly complex and poorly focused).

I agree with this - but National's policy is ZERO hope of parole.


Agreed - and zero parole completely removes rehabilitative.

So the focus and spin on this policy has become "life means life" - i.e those murderers that incur a life sentence will literally be kept in prison until they die.

Ace. So we're going to have 70 and 80 year old men in prison. As Goff said last night "not sure that keeping geriatrics in prison is the best use of scarce public funds"

Restorative is a really misleading term I think... I've yet to hear of one when anything was restored.. I thin the best they get is a face-to-face (with lawyers) to say oh I'm so sorry...usually just sorry they got caught in reality.

I don't see how this restores a murdered loved one, or undoes a brutal beating.

The worst criminals I do think pass a point where the balance of rehabilitation has passed and dealing with them should look way more at preventing the chance of them inflicting their habitual nastiness on others.

Key has called this right imo. The ten or so extra people who would be in prison almost indefinitely is almost certainly a couple less people murdered if they were paroled.

R

a blanket policy that keeps our worst offenders inside and a truck load of others is good?

Truckload of other what?... not-quite so bad offenders? If so, I agree - there's no use in throwing a key away on anyone... but there must come a time when keeping a few inside a lot longer - having proven time and time again they will not rehabilitate or change their ways - is simply for the greater good of everyone else.

We have a pretty bad record for letting people out who go on to reoffend. Something like 1/3 within the first year. So, are the prisons not focused enough on rehab or are those people plain bad? You can't deny that some of those people are just plain bad and making them jump through the same hoops as everyone else to earn parole is just asking for trouble come release time.

R

According to this article, there has only ever been one person who committed a second murder. Ever.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10432311

when is it not?

works for the Brits

hindley and the krays both died there or were released only on their deathbeds as will brady

good ting too

Works how? Exactly what policy objective does it achieve?

the policy of life meaning life for execrable unreformable unrepentant violent career criminals

No it doesn't! You can still rehabilitate someone inside prison, you fool :> Parole isn't synonymous with rehabilitation. Just need to ensure that you monitor them aftewards (parole by another name)

Incidentally the death penalty is 100% rehabilitative.

Fair call - murders are pretty rare in any case in NZ... try aggravated assault and you'll find the reoffending rate is massive. Burglary even higher.

R

3 strikes policy works even better.

Anybody can make a mistake. Sometimes we make 2. 3, and you're just fucking with us.

This is Singapore's justification - technically infallible - No executed murderer has ever gone on to commit another murder.

R

For sure, and as I said I'm all for tougher sentences for repeat violent offending (for it's deterrent value) but a blanket removal of a possibly useful too is just a headline grabbing way of doing it.

but I fail to see how stern sentencing achieves much here

Cocaine plot grandmother given 13 years
New 11:06AM Tuesday Oct 07, 2008
By Terri Judd

A sickly grandmother was found guilty yesterday of smuggling almost £1m worth of cocaine into the UK in her mobility vehicle.

Ambrozine Heron, 77, was jailed for 13 years, while her daughter, Paulette Chambers, 49, was sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Customs officers at Dover found 16kg of cocaine in Heron's specially-adapted Nissan Pathfinder after they stopped the car as it arrived from France in March, Canterbury Crown Court heard.

The pensioner from Smethwick, West Midlands, who suffers from diabetes, asthma and hypertension, had made 14 other similar trips to the continent with her daughter and was likely to have smuggled drugs, the jury heard.

Sentencing, Judge Adele Williams told Heron: "I have no doubt that your role in the car was to add some respectability to the journey in respect of your age and your ill health."

Some commentary from people involved in the law and corrections:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominionpost/4718199a23917.html

Have you seen any of the documentaries on the CI channel that go inside some of Americas worst prisons? Where they have dozens or hundreds of inmates locked up for life? The real life.

They are like zoos except in a zoo the animals are treated better and they don't have to be guarded by guys with fully automatic machine guns.

So how truly rehabilitated can someone who refuses to ‘rehabilitate’ without the reward of early release really be?? Lol

“Now you go say sorry to your sister! … and I’ll give you an icecream…” rofl