Red Alert

The standard exposes nact on three strikes

Posted by on April 20th, 2010

The official advice on the three strikes legislation indicated it could lead to an increase in homicides.

Good work The Standard.

44 Responses to “The standard exposes nact on three strikes”

  1. gitmo says:

    Strange I was under the impression that similar legislation to the three strikes bill has worked reasonably well in California, it also seem rather counterintuitive to me that incarcerating a dangerous criminal for a full term after there third serious offence could increase homicides.

    I just wish all of you in Wellington would stop playing politics with the justice and corrections system and instead of taking a single minded ideological position actually tried to come to some cross party consensus on what work, what needs fixing and get on with it.

  2. Spud says:

    ” just wish all of you in Wellington would stop playing politics with the justice and corrections system and instead of taking a single minded ideological position ” – Labour is allowed to critique the government that is afterall what they are paid to do. ๐Ÿ˜€

    And I really appreciate hearing critique on the three strikes bill, it’s important to hear all sides of the argument, even if there are some people out there who would prefer not to hear any negative opinions on any government policies. ๐Ÿ˜€

    They have different ideological positions for a reason, they have different values, otherwise we would have one big party called the consensus party and there would be no more fun fights! ๐Ÿ˜€

    Oh yeah, good on ya, Trev, ๐Ÿ˜€

  3. Trevor Mallard says:

    Have a read of the advice gitmo. Then you might be better informed. This is now a matter of public safety not politics.

  4. gitmo says:

    Trev reading the standard to stay informed is a bit like seeking advice from Winston Peters on how to be humble.

  5. Anne says:

    As has been pointed out by The Standard, the most serious aspect that has been revealed is… that the Justice Ministry officials who will have to implement this discredited law, were prevented from presenting any submissions to the select committee.

  6. Trevor Mallard says:

    Cmon git I read kiwiblog sometimes, every now and again I learn something. Maybe you could open your mind and give it a go.

  7. Jared says:

    After reading some of the sources cited by the Justice report it would seem the three strikes law is actually quite effective, particularly at discouraging at the second strike.
    The reasoning behind the “May have increased rates of homicide” is ambiguous as the data tends to suggest otherwise.

  8. gitmo says:

    Next you’ll be telling me to read the Whale then I’ll know you’ve gone mad.

  9. Trevor Mallard says:

    No danger of that git

  10. Tracey says:

    I suspect the thinking is similar to the reason why rape was given a lesser sentence than murder becuase the groups representing women were concerned that if the sentences were life for rape then why not rape and murder her, and remove a key witness.

    I suspect if someone is going to commit, say, a robbery, and its their third offence int he offing, the suggestion is they may kill a storekeeper rather than leave him/her as ossible witness when the pubishment under 3 strikes will be the same as if they had murdered…. or something like that?

  11. Rebecca says:

    Very interesting post/article. How this is new information I don’t know – the call for being “tough on crime” and “three strikes” are all things we have been hearing for years and are already (or so I have gathered?) implemented in America yet they have the highest crime rate per capita in the world.

    Clearly this alone is enough to illustrate that incarceration does not reduce crime?

    However, when you have the guys from Sensible Sentencing Trust gaining more momentum with every passing minute, then it does make sense for the government to go down this path – no matter how wrong – as it is clearly finds favour with a lot of the voting public.

    For me I am personally more interested in hearing the views of Assistant General Manager Prison Services Leanna Field who has no time for those who believe in locking the door and throwing away the key.

    If only there were more people like her.

  12. Spud says:

    @Tracey – tha

  13. Spud says:

    My hand slipped :-(

    @Tracey – That sounds about right. :-(
    @Rebecca – Yeah, we hear a lot from sensible sentencing. :-(

  14. Oliver says:

    It is a really tough issue, with good arguments both for and against. I am so glad as just a commentator I don’t have the pressure of coming up with an opinion.

  15. peter says:

    This is such simplistic nonsense, long periods of incarceration without any meaningful rehabiltation is crazy stuff.

    We want people to come out of Prison in a better state than they went in, otherwise why let them out at all ??

  16. Andrew says:

    @Tracey – to quote Graeme Edgeler over at the standard:

    “Those options donโ€™t apply to the New Zealand Three Strikes law, which doesnโ€™t impose mandatory life sentences, except for homicide.”

    A mandatory life sentence is not imposed for robbery. No need to worry, there wont be a rash of shopkeepers being murdered during robbery. Pure scaremongering, plain and simple!

  17. Tracey says:

    Andrew, I wonder what, if any , impact it might have on sexual crimes, in terms of homicides?

    I am an opponent of the 3 strikes rule. I’m with Rebecca this is just more scaremongering, talking up crime to scare people and then falsely reassuring themwith higher sentences. Whats most galling is the people proposing this stuff, including Sensible sentencing have seen the research and choose to ignore it for their own agendas.

  18. in sumnation says:

    maybe you guys should hand out awards for emotes used? or have a 3 strike policy for that, 3 frownies on a labour comment “you’re out” three smileys and you can jump Phil Twyford on the list.

  19. Draco T Bastard says:

    Yeah, we hear a lot from sensible sentencing.

    Except what we need to hear from them. Who the hell funds them?

  20. Tracey says:

    Never has an organised been more wrongly named.

  21. Rebecca says:

    Tracey I agree. But the reality is where crime is concerned, no one wants solutions, we just want the sticky plaster. Law and Order has always been focused on the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff rather than the fence at the top of the cliff.

    In my view, Labour increasing the sentences for various crimes is no worse/better than the 3-strikes. 6 of 1 half dozen of the other if you ask me!

  22. Tracey says:

    Traditionally Labour has been open to rehabilitatio programmes and the support thereof. They veered away from this toward populist BS in the last few years to appease whoever they and NACT think middle class new zealand is. I enjoy the work done by rethinking crime, an group I believe is infinitely better for all NZers than Sensible Sentencing but which is less well known.

    We seem to be living in a world where all the 40+ think they know how to cure everything notwithstanding they (we) have been a big part of the problem, so it beggars belief we could know all the answers.

    I have students who talk about bringing back hard labour and making prisoners work making clothes and other products in competition with those paying minimum wages. It’s all ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. BUT everytime SS is on tv or in print or on radio, you can see the folks nodding in agreement…

  23. Nicola Wood says:

    I saw something somewhere about how it’s likely to significantly discourage the reporting of family violence too – very worrying.

  24. Rebecca says:

    Yes we do all have the answers as reduction of crime starts with personal responsibility…

    I also find it quite saddening how as a society we appear to be without empathy: we ignore the littlies and teens and young that go/have been through hell on a day-to-day basis, screech out a desire to see them subjected to the harshest penalties possible when they go down what is clearly an inevitable path THEN that expect 6 months, 6 years or 60 years of time on the inside will somehow cure them.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: solutions start from the ground up -us- not vice versa. The government needs to recognise this so that resources can be redirected into prevention and rehabilitation.

    Anyway see the story on TV1’s Sunday about Finland and how they have reduced their crime and incarceration rates – they emphasised rehabilitation.

    I think we would fare much better if we compared ourselves to countries like Finland instead of America.

  25. Anne says:

    A very interesting link dated 3rd March 2010 which should answer most people’s questions: blocked

    If someone can link directly even better. (having a lesson this week on how to do it :))

  26. LabRat says:

    I’m not even sure why three strikes needs to be legislated? The judiciary clearly have the ability now to impose maximum sentences, surely there could have just been a big hui with the gummint and the judges and after a few glasses they slap each other on the back and say ‘sorted, 3rd strike offenders get the max’.
    I know the police get instructed by the gummint on things like what margin to allow speeders (since I got pulled up doing 112 and the cop told me the gummint had said to set their radars at 110).

  27. Rebecca says:

    Anne I think you posted the link right but it just didn’t come up…I have googled it so fingers crossed this works better

    Makes for interesting reading!

  28. Rebecca says:

    Ohh, I think you missed out the reference number – just copy & paste the entire link :)

  29. Rebecca says:

    You’re welcome and both articles don’t bode well for the Government’s credibility – it is definitely not a good look!

  30. Spud says:

    ๐Ÿ˜ฏ Anne and Rebecca getting along?

  31. Anne says:

    @ Spud
    I have a habit of being too forthright at times I know… let my tongue run away with me. There’s never meant to be anything nasty about it.

    Where’s that list of Ianmac’s. I put it somewhere. Here it is. :oops

  32. Spud says:

    @Anne – I like your forthrightness ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

  33. paul says:

    Oh I don’t know why we are bothering with 3 strikes – I say we bring in death row…

  34. paul says:

    …got ya! Just kidding.

    Seriously, I am with gitmo – time for the govt and the opp to get on with coming up with some agreement – and its a big shame that Liannes offer to work with the Nats on early intervention etc was knocked back – because that is what I think the future is about. Time to work together on the big issues and reach some key areas that are shared. Because – there will be.

  35. Rebecca says:

    Anne – me neither…we are all here for the same purpose….just different paths & angles!

    Paul yes I agree re your second post though not the first! Yes I can’t help but be a little suspicious about ulterior motives when National refused to worked with Lianne on this issue.

    If they had valid reasons then what were they? I thought Lianne was being very progressive and open to new ideas.

    Ohh where’s a magic wand when you need one!

  36. Spud says:

    @Paul LOL ๐Ÿ˜€

    I can’t see Labour and National agreeing on who should be in government ๐Ÿ˜›

  37. George says:

    Interesting that this story should break on the same day that Joesph Reekers got just 15.5 years minimum non-parole for an horrific murder, notwithstanding a criminal record of over 90 convictions.

    The comments to this blog, when juxtaposed with the silence of everyone on today’s sentencing, is the sort of thing which gives many people the perception that Labour supporters care more about the perpetrators than the victims.

    I don’t insult those who visit here by suggesting for one minute that this is true, but I ask you to consider for a moment and to reflect on how the reality of what you say, and how you say it affects people’s views of the party and its supporters.

    I believe that the natural and reasonable reaction of decent people to today’s pathetic sentence is one of outrage and anger. Unfortunately many social liberals will characterise those who react in that way as rednecks, which just hardens attitudes on both sides. And hence another issue on which everyone wants the same outcome becomes a political football, and we’re diverted from the real aim of solving the problem by the more pressing and important need to score a goal against the other side.

    There’s got to be a better way to address issues than this.

  38. Rebecca says:

    George there is: prevention and rehabilitation.

    While anger is justified, revenge is not and the push for tougher sentences comes from this.

    I wish that these cases would break the silence and make people angry so that they ask why then look for solutions.

    However, considering how we as a society tolerate the abuse, neglect and maltreatment of at least 10,000 each year then I really can’t see New Zealanders wanting to do anything other than put people in prison for longer so that they can have the illusion that society will be that little bit safer,

  39. ben says:

    The official advice on the three strikes legislation indicated it could lead to an increase in homicides.

    Correct Trevor. Probably also relevant is that the bill was amended in view of that advice and the cited literature to preserve marginal deterrence. Worth a mention, no?

    Reading the hysterical comments over at the Standard, led by the ever-repellent and always-wrong Marty G, makes me wonder what is going on in the Left. What I see at the Standard is hateful and angry and a complete disregard for any sense of balance or honesty. Anything is up for sacrifice there. There is a win at all costs mindset and it is disturbing that those people might one day be in control of anything, let alone the NZ government.

    Sad to see you cheering them for this, Trevor.

  40. IrishBill says:

    The advice was given on the amended bill, Ben. Feel free to apologise.

  41. Tracey says:

    George – the ULTIMATE caring about victims is ensuring there are less and less of them as time goes by. The idea that helping current victims is somehow a substitute for working to ensure no more, or reduced future victims, is part of the problem.

    Labour also put in place more assistance for victims, and I am willing to bet not a single person on this thread wants anything BUT more support for victims.

    With less and less money available it simply makes sense to work on genuinely proven ways to reduce crime, the cost of housing a prisoner is far higher than the cost to recompense victims, so reduce the number in prison (committing crimes) and we will free up money to help victims and have some left over for pesky interventions like education and health.

  42. Tracey says:

    For ben and Monty

    Hysteric = # characterized by or arising from psychoneurotic hysteria; “during hysterical conditions various functions of the human body are …# marked by excessive or uncontrollable emotion; “hysterical laughter”; “a mob of hysterical vigilantes”