Roger McClay and the troubled teenage thief were different cases

BY WAYNE GOODALL

OPINION: Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar told us last week "the present parole system is a dog's breakfast."

"Offenders could get parole after serving just one third of their sentence. They could get automatic parole after serving two-thirds and only in rare cases did offenders serve their whole sentence".

This description is misleading and inaccurate.

Offenders are eligible for parole at one-third, but automatic parole at two-thirds was abolished in 2002 and applies only to the dwindling number of offenders imprisoned before the 2002 reforms. Offenders can now serve the full term.

Exploratory research I undertook for the Sentencing Establishment Unit showed that the 2002 reforms have had a dramatic effect.

Previously offenders were kept to full term only in exceptional circumstances. Now there are no limitations.

My research covered offenders serving sentences of up to four years; there had not been time for the full effects of the changes to be measured for longer sentences.

I found that 168 of 644 offenders freed in the year to March 31, 2008, served the whole sentence. In my book, 26 per cent is not rare.

Last week The Dominion Post compared two cases, the fall from grace of Roger McClay and the tragic case of Andrej Schwaab.

We were meant to understand that one was treated leniently and the other harshly.

Schwaab embarked on a crime spree that involved burglary and was driving in a way that risked a loss of life. He had a firearm. He also had a previous record. No reparation was ordered.

It is clear that he is a young man with potential and a tragic upbringing. Personally, I would have hoped the judge might have found a better sentence structure for him.

McClay, on the other hand, did not pose a risk to life and had no prior record. He does have a background of service to the community and he did make amends.

Of course they were treated differently; they were different cases.

Nonetheless, some commentators and politicians have treated them as if they are alike. We are told there is a growing discrepancy between the powerful and the powerless at sentencing.

Labour MPs Charles Chauvel and Lianne Dalziel tell us that those committing financial crimes get softer treatment than burglars. No evidence was offered in support of these propositions except for references to the case of former Blue Chip boss Mark Bryers.

I agree Bryers got off lightly compared with the harm caused to others, but that case has no similarity to McClay's or the broad run of financial offences.

ARE THERE any sentencing statistics that back up their claims? The best evidence would be a detailed study extracting real information on the harm from offending and its scale, but I am unaware of any such study.

However, I assembled some broad statistics comparing sentencing for those committing fraud and deception offences with those for burglary from 2004 to 2006.

Burglars are imprisoned more frequently - 45 per cent of burglars were imprisoned compared with 18 per cent of deception offenders.

However, global comparisons often hide important distinctions. The burglars had, on average, appeared for sentence 10 times previously. The average for deception offenders was 4.4 times. It would be fairer to compare more similar groups.

The imprisonment rate for first-time burglars was 5 per cent compared with 14 per cent for deception offenders. The likelihood of a prison sentence is reversed.

The average community work sentence for first-time deception offenders convicted on three charges was 160 hours. McClay's sentence of 300 hours was almost double the average.

The final leg of the comparison is to compare welfare offenders with general deception offenders. If the less well-off are more harshly treated, those found guilty of welfare deception should be more harshly sentenced.

However, the imprisonment rates for first-time offenders were 8 per cent for welfare deception and 20 per cent for other deception.

This probably indicates that welfare deception is smaller scale, but it does not support the contention that sentencing goes against the poor.

I have no sympathy for McClay, but he was sentenced appropriately.

The inaccurate claims about parole and the uninformed claims about sentencing are symptomatic of the debate around criminal justice. Little real information is used and slanted views are presented.

This may be good, short-run populist politics and good for lobby groups, but it is creating a system that we will pay dearly for in the long run.

If there was one reform that Justice Minister Simon Power could make to our benefit, it would be to oversee the assembly and informed release of accurate information on what really occurs and some rebalancing of the misleading and inaccurate positions put forward.

Wayne Goodall is a PhD student who previously worked in the justice sector for 15 years.

- © Fairfax NZ News