Editorial: A misguided policy

OPINION: The three strikes policy which National and ACT have stitched up between themselves will appease a few conservative drum-beaters and might even seem good politics.

If nothing else, it allows these parties to claim that they have heeded the lock-em-up brigade's never-ending calls to "get tough on crime". Unfortunately, some might see it as a validation of ACT leader Rodney Hide, who shattered his own credibility irrevocably with his outrageous attempts to fund overseas travel in direct contrast to his one-time perk-busting crusade.

Politics aside, the key test of the policy is, will it work? Will the gains outweigh the costs? Will society be safer as a result? The jury will be out on questions of this nature until well after the legislation has been introduced and brought into play. However, a number of experts and people working in the criminal justice areas have expressed grave doubts. Under the policy, if an offender commits three strikes he will face being locked away in jail without any chance of release. On the third "strike", unless they deem it to be manifestly unjust, judges will have to impose the maximum sentence for the crime and the offender will not be eligible for parole. At the most simplistic level, it would mean all the wicked people eventually will be locked away. Pensioners would be able to dance on the streets, night or day, in complete safety, even if there will be a few casualties yet before this nirvana is reached.

If only it were that simple. A serious flaw in any "no parole" system is that it eliminates the incentive to work towards rehabilitation and eventual redemption. Another likely consequence of the policy is an adjustment of the judicial balance, away from the courts and towards the police. People working in the criminal justice field expect it will lead to "three strikes" offences being laid by the police, and then potentially substituted for lesser charges in return for guilty pleas. Such plea-bargaining might save court time in some cases but will also lead to innocent people, who nevertheless recognise a case could be made against them, opting to cut their losses and accept an unjust conviction. It has even been suggested that some violent recidivist offenders might embark on killing sprees, whether to remove witnesses or simply because they felt they had nothing to lose by doing so.

The policy reduces the discretion of judges – one of the most vital aspects of the criminal justice system. Inevitably, there are degrees of seriousness within broad categories of offences and offenders. That is why sentencing is such an important part of the process, and why judges need a range of sentencing options for anything other than clear-cut traffic offences and the like. Otherwise, money and time could be saved by handing sentencing duties over to bureaucrats with prescribed lists. The policy will require extra prison capacity and cost more. It will lead to more offences against a vulnerable sector – other inmates. It will not address the real causes of crime in this country – already one of the most prolific and enthusiastic users of jails in the Western world. These include generational family dysfunction, alcoholism and other drug dependency, and illiteracy. Better politics would focus on these areas rather than responding to the baying of the mob.

- © Fairfax NZ News

Newest First

Oldest First