Last night Parliament debated the National/ACT government’s 3 strikes legislation. There were some exceptional contributions to the debate, some passionate contributions, and some that were downright embarrassing. It was telling that nobody from the National Party, other than Judith Collins, rose to speak in favour of the Bill. Clearly they’ve been pushed into supporting it by ACT.
The contributions from Judith Collins were disappointingly nasty. She chose to resort to cheap slogans suggesting Labour didn’t care about victims, condoned the actions of violent criminals, and had done nothing in 9 years in government. It’s sad that this is what debate on law and order in New Zealand has become. I don’t agree with much of what National proposes in the law and order area, but I won’t suggest that they don’t care about victims or that they condone violent offending. We disagree, but that doesn’t mean we have to resort to childish name calling.
I passionately believe that we need to spend as much time focusing on the causes of crime as we do on punishment after the fact. When I argued this during the debate National MP Sandra Goudie said it was a joke. I don’t think there is anything funny about saying we’re better off trying to prevent someone from being raped or murdered in the first place rather than spending all of our time talking about how to punish the offender after the event.
If we’re really serious about focusing on victims, perhaps we could consider how to make sure we have less of them in the future. We can’t keep ignoring the links between poverty, mental health problems, victimisation, alienation and criminal offending. We already have one of the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. Do we really think that New Zealanders are twice as criminally inclined as Australians? One thing I’m certain of – if we keep doing more of the same, we’ll get more of the same.
Prevention is far better than cure. And the place to take those preventative measures is in the </= 12 year old crowd. Not really rocket science.
Having said that, Labour needs to appear a lot harder on crime and a lot harder on fraud.
I think that Labour can achieve this by being much "firmer" (but fair) on the worst 5% of criminals who truly require that treatment, while working hard on measures to prevent crime and prevent its recurrence/prevent re-offending/increase reintegration into the productive community.
If Labour only has the latter apparent and not the former it will always fall prey to the typical right wing accusation of being "soft on crims", "being more concerned with perps than victims" etc.
As a friend of mine suggests – wrap a whole lot of Labour goodness and approaches in a thin wrap of being tough on those who truly deserve it.
Deleted trolling Trevor
In regard to prevention better that cure – you are 100% correct – but you cannot have one without the other. There will always be bad people – and they will need to be locked up.
Tragically I have had two childhood friends who have killed (One twice) and another who was killed by a hit to the head with a tire iron. Did the thought of prison stop any of these things happening – no.
Prevention – ie noticing that they were messed up and trying whatever was necessary *may* have prevented the deaths. Again sadly – we will never know because not enough was done.
However – with the guy who killed twice (he was mentally unstable) – only preventative detention would have saved the second death.
People end up in jail because they have done bad things. They (generally) know that what they are doing is wrong yet do it anyway. They choose not to play by the social norms of acceptable behavior – if we cannot get them to change their views and stop them making the deliberate decision to break the law (and Im talking any crime here – not just the crimes against person) then they deserve to be locked up and kept away from people that do.
One thing I’m certain of – if we keep doing more of the same, we’ll get more of the same.
Quite right National is continuing down the same disgusting law and order path that Labour began taking us down with longer sentences, harsher bail and parole laws, new police powers, and so on. Our ever increasing incarceration rate is something to be ashamed of and not celebrate as Phil Goff did when Justice minister.
Quoth – its funny because it sounds like you are saying that National is running with Labour policies on law and order. Uh, thats not the case at all, I can assure you. Both National and Labour would deny that point so you’re all alone on that one.
I like that Goff made covert filming illegal –
@Chris – sure there are psychopaths and stuff, many who even manage not to get locked up in the first place.
This nine years thing, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Loota – Labour may not support this particular ludicrous piece of legislation, but if we look beyond the rhetoric and see what Labour actually did when in power you can see that National is simply continuing in the same populist law and order vein that Labour pursued with enthusiasm.
However, maybe Labour has turned a corner. Maybe they’ll repudiate their former populist stance and promise to undo their own changes to sentencing, parole and bail that have contributed so greatly to our shameful incarceration rate. Maybe they’ll apologise for the damage they’ve done to this country. But that won’t win elections and since power is all to such people I fully expect come election time that Labour will once again cynically ramp up the populist law and order rhetoric and talk tough on crime.
You can call our incarceration rate shameful, but so were the crimes that put the people there in the first place.
I’m all for crime prevention and rehabilitation, but I still think that if crimes are committed that they should be punished.
I don’t think Chris Hipkin’s post reflects your post at all Quoth and perhaps should give you a little bit more confidence that Labour is closely examining the way forward, not the way backward.
Only a fool believes that three strikes will reduce serious violent crime. Hanging didn’t, so why should this ‘bumper sticker’ policy? The real crooks are those who peddle this kind of false hope.
Agreed, 3 strikes is crap
I’m not arguing that repeat violent offenders shouldn’t face the consequences of their actions. The problem I have with 3 strikes is that it removes judicial discretion. A judge can’t take into account mitigating circumstances. It could lead to some very unjust outcomes.
The accusation that Labour was soft on crime is easily dismissed when one looks at the longer minimum non-parole periods for serious crimes, the increase in parole applications that were declined, and the significant increase in the prison population!
Tough on crime rhetoric has been dished out in equal measure on both sides of the debate, but that alone won’t prevent crime in the first place. We have to balance prevention with punishment/rehabilitation. In my view punishment gets too much of the focus instead of prevention/rehabilitation.
@Chris – agreed.
You are representing my views on this Chris. Thank you.
Loota – Despite Hipkins rhetoric and seemingly principled stance on the 3 strikes bill we have the reality of Labour’s time in power and that was a focus on punishment. For example the Sentencing Act 2002, the Parole Act 2002, the Bail Act 2000. Look at the grotesque abrogation of our rights in the Criminal Proceeds recovery bill which was Labour’s baby but taken up and passed by National. The Key is to separate the rhetoric from the reality and the reality is that Labour is closer to National on this issue than they want us to think. I’ll repeat my prediction that, as cynical and desirous of power as they are, come election time Labour will be trumpeting its record on crime and proposing some new draconian legislation to crack down on crime. We shouldn’t fool ourselves that they’ll be thinking soberly, take our rights into regard or be talking highly of ‘judicial discretion’ when power is within their reach or in their hands. If you want a sensible and rational approach with a regard for human rights when it comes to law and order don’t look to Labour.
Quoth said:
Implying that NZ’ers should look to National, and its awful, counter-productive, loophole filled 3 strikes legislation? Legislation that Labour never has or would have presented to the House?
I understand that under the proposed legislation a serial rapist or multiple murderer who gets caught and convicted for the first time of multiple crimes against multiple people and gets…ummmm…one strike? This tough on crime bill is not even tough in the right ways – its an absurdity.
Thanks Quoth, but at least Labour is making principled noises to start with, we don’t even get that far with NACT.
Loota – Don’t make assumptions. I would never support National. If you bothered to read my comments you’d have noted I called this legislation ludicrous.
The only party I ever voted for before was Labour. I would never do it again and I am deeply ashamed of it as anyone should be. I don’t support any political party. Greens, Labour, National, Act, they’re all disgusting to me.
I can’t really comment on this due to my job but I will say my neck is getting sore from all the shaking…
OK Quoth, you have got me there by complete surprise: why participate in a political party blog when all political parties from any side of the spectrum disgusts you?
@Quoth the Raven – I see where you’re coming from with all the various political parties. I like reading your views too.
I agree with Quoth on this. Both Labour and National, and other parties beside rely on populist “hot buttons’ when it comes to Law and Order rather than long term proven strategies. I dont see anything from National so far to prove me wrong
Chris re “The problem I have with 3 strikes is that it removes judicial discretion.”
I agree. However, where a lot of the frustration stems from is that there seems to be a little too much judicial discretion which NACT appear to be taking advantage of & going to the other extreme (e.g. no judicial discretion).
Examples of this very lax approach to justice include where a man was recently convicted of child pornography & was given home detention & vigilantes who took batons & a loaded gun to drunk & disorderly teens who were alleged to have committed burglaries (but it was proven later they weren’t responsible) got off with barely a slap on the wrist….the list could go on & on.
That said I wish there was more emphasis placed on preventing crime & rehabilitating offenders once incarcerated. This would be far more beneficial to our society instead of merely stating that annoying SST “tough on crime” etc.
I agree with longer sentences for the more serious crimes & I am pleased with what Labour did in this area, but this should not be the only focus.