Our absurd three strikes bill

Now, I am all for escalating punishments for repeat offenders. But the current bill is simply poor legislation.

The theory behind escalators is this: each crime consists of an act against the social contract as well as an act of specific harm. Repeated disobedience to the social contract needs to be met with increasing punishment in order to first deter the offender, and later eliminate the offender from social intercourse

It has NOTHING to do with the severity of the individual crimes. Three murders is 3x worse than 1 murder.

As such, imposing it only for "serious violent" offences is stupid. A 3-time burglar is just as culpable in his/her actions against the social contract and the law as a 3-time rapist/murderer.

hey , its a start.

three strikes and you're out and if you commit a fourth... you walk?

(nod to PA)

Such a crap, populist bill. You want to adjust the likely sentences for escalating crimes? Strengthen the Sentencing Guidelines Act (which already caters for second and third crimes).
But taking the insight of a judge completely out of a specific case so that ACT can feel all smug? Insanity

This may not the best ending to this but you can figure out if it is a step in the right direction by asking one question:

Is it an improvement at all on what happens now? Yes.

Many criminals with long histories of repeat offending get sentenced leniently for repeat offending in NZ. This is an issue with judges imo - many seem hesitant to view sentencing the way many NZers would view as being an equitable and fair system: i.e. the more you do something and show your inability to change your ways, the more the penalty. Removing this leeway of judges in this respect makes their life easier I'm sure. It's something they have struggled with since, well... ever in NZ.

But, as G-Dub said, why not just amend existing law? Probably because this way Rodney gets more glory.

i see indecent assault is listed as one of the 36 qualifying offences - how absurd

one such case i dealt with involved an unwanted kiss on the cheek - technically an indecent assault

that might send you to prison for LIFE under the new law - ridiculous, mechanical, stupid legislation

Not directly it wouldn't no (if it was the third strike you'd get the max sentence for indecent assault). Indirectly it could contribute to your strikes, and if you murdered someone on the next offence then yes it could...

JH don't you find it illogical that the goal is to address repeated offending yet only certain offences are listed?

if we are addressing repetitive criminality, it should apply to ALL sentences

if we want to address violent offences, then raise the tariffs for those ofences

it's illogical and absurd.

But there are VERY few people who commit say three separate GBH/serious assaults

there are dozens if not hundreds with 100+ burglary offences

you're addressing 1% of the problem and ignoring the rest

just had a quick read of the bill and i see how important the notion of qualifying SENTENCES is under the proposed system

you're not going to be in any danger of a "strike" unless the court is imposing a sentence on you of 5 years or more - that's going to stop three strikes applying to an awful lot of offenders

443 extra beds after 30 plus years by their reckoning does not a flood make

i agree, it reflects muddled thinking and misplaced priorities

BUT i don't think the government actually cares about coming up with a logical and coherent law tbh

they just want to throw something out there to appease the masses and make them think the government is "getting tough" on crime

it's not going to reduce crime or make anyone safer

I fail to see how this is absurd? Its only affecting the worst offenders, its a step in the direction of what the public wants - tougher sentences on repeat offenders. It doesn't tie up the judges hands they can still adjust the sentence. If repeat offenders are in jail it will mean they cant continue to be repeat offenders at least while theyre locked up. It will free up police resources and possibly mean theres more resources available to help people who show a chance of rehabilitating with the right programs.

I'm not sure it is inconsistent - explain ?

ps, im pretty sure a function of justice is for justice to appear to be done - ie society should to some degree be satisfied with the outcomes. Reading about people who have a long long list of violent offences getting minor prison time doesnt give the public that feeling eh.

Im not familiar with the ins and outs of it but i think it is most peoples expectation that repeat offences should bring a greatly increasing response, and in the case of repeat violent offenders it should be more time in jail.

I believe you're looking at an old copy of the bill in that case - I believe that 5 year sentence for a strike bit is now removed?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/justice-system/news/article.cfm?c_id=240&objectid=10621211&pnum=0

re 5years - its not clear but it seems to say the second offence has to be 5 years to trigger it

I believe they're wrong - I have A LOT more faith in this guy than the Herald, although I will note that he says he's not yet able to read the legislation:

http://publicaddress.net/6420#post6420

oh dear

must try again!

seems i was reading the most up-to-date copy of the bill publicly-available, which still talks about "qualifying sentences"

so i take it that the 5 year rule is going to be deleted before the bill is passed into law ... or the final draft is not available yet

The hysteria about crime has nothing to do with public need, and everything to do with the need the media have to exploit fear to sell media audiences to advertisers.

the law should not cater to a bunch of bloodthirsty lowest common denominators who rave about harsher punishment without giving the issue anything more than cursory thought and consideration. criminal and penal policy should accord with principles of justice and fairness, should be supported by up-to-date research on what works and what doesn't, and should have nothing, absolutely nothing to do with popular opinion or popular perceptions of the system, its workings and its outcomes........imo :>

really?

do you also think government should be run the same way, by the academics?

If the public doesnt have faith in the system then it has failed to work and if there is no confidence so people stop participating in it and either give in to the crime and pay protection or take matters into their own hands. Im not saying that that is what we have in NZ.

Why paint people as blood thirsty? Sure theres some idiots out there but it seems to be a fairly cheap way to stage your argument?

Well let me put it this way. If you dont listen, the blood thirsty moron masses will vote in someone who will give them what they want. That is why, in a democracy you have to consider what the perception of the public is.

You dont have to give the blood thirsty 'masses' blood to change the perception of the public.

What does the research say on rehabilitating repeat violent offenders?

well said. BG - I think you'll find that the very approach you're describing is exactly why we don't have a labour government anymore.

but that is precisely what it has been doing in the view of many clients of the justice system i.e Joe public and why the political demand for harsher sentencing

as to calls for fixing the root causes this is a hardy annual which is as old as Adam -the fact is recalcitrant hardened crims respect no attempt to reform them and for our protection they must be put away for the maximum if after two opportunities they demonstrate no inclination to reform

Perception needs to be dealt with yes, but I wish said "masses" realised we run a representative democracy, whereby people are voted in to represent you and deal with issues that you don't have the knowledge or time to fully understand. Representative democracy is not bending to the immediate will of the public - it is taking advice and making good laws on behalf of that populace. We vote in people that are good at making those decisions for us once reviewing all necessary information.

IMO, this is a "good law" only on the absolute surface. Anybody who looks into the realities of what it means and explores research (i.e. the job of our elected representatives) should see that and not be supporting it on behalf of the country.

The description she gives of it also applies to the legal profession in general - they view most situations not on merit or rightness or any other lofty ideal but rather take whatever stance which will be the most lucrative for them as an industry.

thats nothing on politicans rob... enact legislation that does little to address the 'problem' but does cater to the masses thus hopefully enuring a second term

cynical manipulation of the public for no real benefit

Absolutely, I agree Bob.

There is nothing I hate more than a wimp who, instead of debating the point made, tries to marginalize it by alleging bias based on professional stereotypes. Perhaps I ought to find a doctor or an animal shelter volunteer who'll make the same point instead of a filthy lawyer

why are people taking the view that just because a government tries to give the public what they want, that it makes them a bad government? Like bob said - if the government doesn't give people what they want it just makes them look arrogant and out of touch with the public, which will only lead to rebellion by an increasing proportion of disillusioned citizens.

if anything, giving the people what they want (or at least trying to meet them half way) is a much better approach than saying "our research says you're wrong so we'll ignore your requests completely".

I have nothing wrong with tougher laws.

However, I have a lot of issues with illogical laws, as I pointed out earlier.

I also hate those stupid ads showing someone doing 60. Guess what? If you were doing 40, you wouldn't hit something you'd have hit doing 50 either. And doing 30 you'd avoid something you'd hit at 40. Worst. argument. ever.

I listened to a couple of legal academics on the radio this morning pointing out the "distortions" this bill will create in sentencing practice. For example the following scenario:

1st offence: Minor drunken 'grope' at a party (sexual assault)
2nd: Drunken fight in a pub leading to injury (wounding with intent)
3rd: Stealing a cell phone off someone in the street, no violence used (aggravated robbery)

Sentence = 14 years in prison (and i think without parole)

what do experts know

People don't get convicted as per the first example unless it's way more serious than 'minor'.

Remember, at the other end of the scale we have people with dozens of drink-driving convictions who've yet to get any jail time.

There should be a practical way to move balance of sentences from the rehab/have-a-think-about-it side of things to the pure punishment side when people have demonstrated again and again they wont play ball or rehabilitate. There are situations where short prison terms simply don't work and the practical option of longer jail-time is guaranteed to reduce their inflicting more harm on society.

Of course it should only apply to repeats of serious crime and not different or comparably minor ones as the obviously extreme and silly example above is trying to demonstrate will happen as standard.

As per Vads' comment way up near the top of the thread it's the people with 100 burglary convictions who need to be dealt with in a way more equitable way imo. Once you pass, say, 5 convictions for a single crime it should be outside of the judge's options whether a person will do time.

justhanging would offer evidence to the contrary, and as legal academics the sources i would refer to would know too

WTF? Get off the grass. People don't get jailed for a "minor drunken 'grope' at a party' " in NZ.

People here rarely get jailed even for punching a random person on the street if it's a first offence.

that's right

I recall the case of a foreign man visiting NZ to see his relatives here; he was at a social event with those relatives; he drunkenly groped the crotch of his niece's friend. we're talking something that was of very brief duration. an unwise thing done under the influence of alcohol.

her friend went straight to police and police went ALL OUT to get him (with the usual hysteria that accompanies these types of charges)and seek the maximum penalty they could. police had plenty of evidence to convict and he no doubt would have been if he had not fled the country! he had no previous convictions here or overseas and he was getting on in years.

that's just one example.

What's your problem with that? The person has obviously shown, especially in the THIRD incident, a wilful disregard for the law. We don't need him/her.

If they didn't learn from their 1st or 2nd convictions, we don't need them.

Child or adult?

I call bollocks to that being the norm tho. The norm, as far as what I recall in the media and from a couple of mates over the years being had up on assault - some minor and some very serious - is a prison sentence is very rare for first offenders unless the end-result is severe.

This from today: a guy found guilty of assault with a blunt instrument (he threw a wine bottle at a waitress). Fined $500, court costs of $130 and reparation of $250 to the waitress.
- http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3540112/Assault-conviction-after-restaurant-blow-up

A guy who beat someone with a golf club until it broke and then attacked another person. Sentenced to sentenced to four months' community detention and 100 hours' community work. (plus paying reparation for separate theft charges)
- http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/3498220/Golf-club-assault-leads-to-penalty

Even Tony Vietch didn't get prison for a pretty serious assault with aggravating factors.

late teens

before we continue this debate, should we not work out how much of the new law turns on ACTUAL sentences imposed, as opposed to the maximum penalty of the relevant offence? I'm still confused.

Audio of the iterview is available on this page
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/
Might not be there for long, but i've downloaded the mp3 and will listen to it when i get some speakers set up on this computer

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V75-4CSP323-2&_user=10&_coverDate=08/31/2004&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1278252144&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=4dcb0a83827de220670f90cbcad9545a

"Using county-level data from California for the years 1989–2000, this study explored the effect of three-strikes legislation on serious crime. It improved on most previous research in this area by controlling for how often prosecutors charged offenders under the three-strikes statute. Preliminary findings suggested that larceny was reduced by way of deterrence resulting from three-strikes and that all index crimes were reduced by way of incapacitation. Once county-specific trends were controlled for, however, the deterrent and incapacitative effects of three-strikes legislation disappeared altogether."


Disclaimer: lIterally the first reference i stumbled across so in no way a systematic review of the evidence.

I just checked the interview, and you might like to check your facts!

The initially proposed legislation required each "strike" to involve one of a set of listed offences, and a sentence of 5 years or more in prison for that offence.

Under the proposed new legislation as amended by National and now about to have its second reading in parliament, a "strike" is merely an offence on the list - jail time is not required.

Consequently, the problem of distortions should be obvious (see the example already given). There is the potential for offenders to spend long prison sentences for a set of offences that are low on the scale of seriousness for offences of that type.

This is a particular issue in relation to manslaugher, which can include killing someone accidentally or through negligence. The new leglislation pays no recognition to this. In effect, a mechanic who kills someone by failing to fix their car properly would have to be treated the same in court as a murderer (assuming the "accidental killer" has two strikes already).

Another example of how this law contradicts current sentencing policy is this: A offender (X) with two strikes against him is talked into commiting a burgley with someone else (Y). X plays a minor role in the burglery, but is caught. X pleads gulity early, and helps the police arrest Y. Y's involvement in the offence is serious - they cause more damage, they harm people. Nonetheless, X will receive a harsh sentence, Y less so. Such an outcome is irrational. From the perspective of the victims it fails to distribute justice fairly amongst those culpable.

One really has to ask how well this legislation has been thought through - or is it designed to appease the worst elements of public fear over crime.

It's pretty clear from my posts following the three step example you posted that I said most people who get convicted of assault don't get jailed, which is correct.

I wouldn't consider convictions without jail-time as as serious as ones with jail-time generally and am not sure whether people should be required to have been jailed or merely convicted to fall under this 3-strikes thing. Of course there will be extreme examples which buck the trend but it's pretty safe to assume the people who get jailed have done something more serious (or have more than one conviction) than ones who don't.

Its also pretty clear that you thought that a conviction with no jail time could not be counted as a strike.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3546310/Learner-driver-busted-28-times

A Christchurch man has been convicted for the 28th time for breaching the conditions of his learner's licence, sparking calls for offenders' cars to be confiscated if they continually flout the law.

Gary van Dorp, 28, appealed his $500 fine and a three-month disqualification on two charges of breaching a learner's licence – he has 26 previous convictions for learner's licence breaches. The latest were entered in October last year, for failing to display an L plate and for driving unaccompanied.

His appeal failed, but road safety advocates say it unacceptable that he has been able to break the law so many times with little consequence.

Clive Matthew-Wilson of the car buyers' guide Dog & Lemon says the case illustrates why fines and disqualifications don't work, and repeat offenders need to have their cars confiscated. "It's outrageous – the point of having a licence is so that you can drive safely. If you continually flout the law, you shouldn't be on the road."

Clearly an absurd case, but you really need to explain how its relavant to this discussion

that some punishments dont escalate when they should. 3 strikes is a crude response but a step in the right direction.

Even if it results in some unjust outcomes as described?
Even if it might have no impact on the crime rate as some research shows, but is fiscally expensive?

prison for low level crimes doesn't do much in the way of stopping re-offending either and is fiscally expensive, should we scrap prison sentences for low level crimes?

Yes but only if there is a superior alternative

Well different people have different ideas of unjust so that is a difficult qualification. Im not really a fan of a blanket 3 strikes rule but in principle I believe *more* severely graduated punishments should be dished out. Especially for repeat violent crime. I would even favour dropping first offence penalties significantly as long as some sort of proven rehab work is undertaken. It should however rely heavily on the offender proving they want to change rather than "being" changed. For instance maybe we could have low security prisons that are more for boarding/ getting away from bad influences. Little in the way of actual security except they have constant drug and alcohol checks.

So if increasing penalties doesn't reduce crime, should we abolish all penalties - it won't affect crime rates and it'll be cheap?

Dude it's like you're wilfully ignoring the key element to escalating punishments
We are NOT punishing the specific act disproportionately, we are punishing the continual refusal to abide by society's laws. A recidivist burglar is actually more of a threat to society than you getting drunk one night, punching someone, and killing them in a bar fight.

Logically, if specific increases in penalites do not reduce crime, it does not follow that specific reductions in penalties will also not reduce crime.

I'm not sure i understand your point here. I think you want to see 'escalation' apply to all offences, not some as the current bill specifies? Logically, i can see how that makes sense (deterrence, incapacitation), but the problems i have with this idea are empirical (there is some evidence it does not work), and 'outcome' (the specific provisions of the bill have the potential to create distortions in sentencing). While i appreciate that you might feel a person who commits a low level offence continuously, and repeatedly even when caught, is anti-social, i cannot accept that they should be punished more than a person who is caught once for a much more serious offence. I think that what matters most is the severity of the offence, not the frequency of an offenders 'disobedience' against the law.

So we disagree fundamentally. To me, illegal acts are primarily wrong because they are illegal (as well as their other immorality). However I don't want to get into a massive philosophical argument about the key goals of penal policy etc because we'll never come to a closer point.

However I will point this out: if the severity of the offence matters more than the offender's mindset, why don't we conflate murder/manslaughter/accidental homicide into a single criminal act?

I don't think that the severity of an offence can only be defined in terms of the severity of the outcome, and the argument i'm running does not require me to think in that way.

I agree that we have a fundamental difference in values over whether what matters most is primarily the severity of an offence (intention and outcome), or primarily the frequency of offending.

I suppose your primary goal is an ordered and obedient society, whereas mine in one where harm is minimised.

Indeed, and your refusal to see that illegality is and of itself harmful is the problem here.

Operation Persil, which sought to clean up Hamilton by targeting dishonesty offenders, has led to 20 arrests including a pair of burglars with almost 300 prior convictions.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3565744/Hamilton-police-operation-nabs-20

After 100 convictions I think there should be some pretty serious monitoring of a person If not extended preventative detention (in this case perhaps in a low security or residential situation.