"Three Strikes” Policy Needs to Be Changed

Parliament will be considering the “three strikes” policy again today, when the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill undergoes its second reading in the House.

“The Bill should be rejected, as analysis by legal experts shows it is likely to create injustice—it could treat relatively minor offenders very harshly and disproportionately—and is unlikely to deter offenders. It could also end up having many troubling unintended consequences,” according to Alex Penk, Policy and Research Manager at Maxim Institute.

“If Parliament does not decide against the Bill, they should make a series of amendments that would improve some of the most concerning aspects of the policy,” Penk says.

“A series of very credible amendments has been recently recommended in a paper by legal experts from Auckland University. Those changes would improve the proposed law and will hopefully be carefully considered by Parliament,” says Penk.

The amendments recommended are:

• Authorise judges not to impose the maximum sentence on strike three if this would be manifestly unjust (this amendment would bring the legislation into line with the assertions being made by the ACT Party).

• Retain presumptive eligibility for parole, or if this is not done, authorise judges not to order the sentence be served without eligibility for parole on strike two if this would be manifestly unjust.

• Modify what counts as a strike from a conviction for a qualifying offence alone to at least a custodial sentence for a qualifying offence and preferably a custodial sentence of some length, say at least two years.

• Make provision for strikes to lapse over time (perhaps after ten years).

• Make specific provision in strike three sentencing to recognise a guilty plea, allowing judges to discount the maximum sentence by up to 25 percent, depending on when in the trial process the plea is made.

• Authorise the courts not to impose a life sentence for murder and manslaughter if this would be manifestly unjust.

• Specify that some instances of manslaughter (most notably accidents arising out of gross negligence) do not constitute a qualifying offence.

Source (including detailed analysis of the “three strikes” policy): Professor Warren Brookbanks and Dr Richard Ekins, “Criminal injustice and the proposed ‘three strikes’ law,” http://maximorgnz.sites.acclipse.com/assets/784b3297-5838-4947-951f-363c11087a4a/files/docs/three_strikes_occasional_paperpdf

ENDS

© Scoop Media