'Three strikes' law under intense scrutiny

Print

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:02p.m.

Peter Williams QC does not believe the three strikes policy is the best approach

Peter Williams QC does not believe the three strikes policy is the best approach

By Brooke Sabin

The proposed "three strikes law" is coming under increased scrutiny with critics saying it is an attack on the foundation of justice.

National and Act have agreed on a policy which will see third-time serious offenders get the maximum sentence with no chance of parole.

Mt Eden prison is undergoing a facelift as part of a major overhaul of the historic facility in Auckland; when completed it will house 450 more offenders than it does now.

Opponents of the three strikes policy say we will need every bed.

“In fact I think it will increase crime. When people know that they are faced with

life in prison, meaning life, they will kill rather than being arrested,” says Peter Williams QC.

Reaction is clearly divided, with the Maori Party calling the policy an attack on the foundation of justice.

Lobby groups say there is no hope for offenders to be rehabilitated if their only option is a lengthy sentence.

“There are a small number, and they are relatively small, who are repeat violent offenders who do not want to be rehabilitated,” says David Garrett.

Prominent QC Peter Williams says the policy doesn't address one of the core reasons people end up in prison – alcohol.

What's more, drug dealers don't fall under the law; and as for serious violence – Mr Williams says it will have little impact.

“Murder is not usually committed by what you'd call ‘professional criminals’,” he says. “Murder is often a domestic thing.”

One of the biggest concerns opponents have is that power will be taken away from the judiciary.

On the third offence, in the vast majority of cases, offenders will face a maximum sentence.

Critics say that decision should not be made in parliament.

While prisons continue to be built, a major report just released in the UK says a third of the prison population needs to be released – and serious repeated offenders should be rehabilitated – not incarcerated.

A stark contrast in the direction New Zealand is about to lock itself into.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

22 Jan 2010 02:31p.m.

Felicia wrote:

2009 = 'Crusher' Collins informs the public that as our jails are overcrowded and the government is cutting costs, some prisoners will be treated as freight and put into containers. 2010 = the government has got enough money to incarcerate more prisoners for longer periods!?!

21 Jan 2010 01:10p.m.

cynical wrote:

What do you mean Phil, poverty of the mind or spirit(s)?
Nobody is saying that other issues do not need to be addressed. All that is being done is actually indicate to the offender to stop offending after the first time. See the "it is not OK" ad for anti violence, and yet you want the offender to keep offending? As far as turning the clock back, that had in fact capital punishment! Yes, there are many things that need addressing. As far as poverty is concerned, what is poverty? Being able to get drunk every day and/or night? Having cellphones? I remember the stories of the old days, when large families lived in just the one room, with the parents working hard to change the "lot" of the children - these were virtually streetkids every day. But they did not grow up to be criminals. Instead, they made life for their children better again, with them getting even better education. But some of these children have not learned how difficult it has been, they expect things either given to them, or otherwise they just take it. Yes, there are many factors but giving people the right to keep raping, assaulting and killing should not be part of the solution. That solution has clearly failed. The basic human right to live and live unassaulted must be the foremost interest of the legal profession. All other rights flow from that.

21 Jan 2010 11:45a.m.

Phil wrote:

Peter Williams is correct. We cannot have politicians being involved in the judiciary. They have a lack of understanding on the concepts of natural justice.

Infact New Zealand has the manchester system where the judiciary are independent of the executive and parliment.
Solutions to dealing with crime should be made by judges, social workers, the police and not politicians like Judith Colins.

New Zealand under both Labour and National has already the highest prison numbers.

We also have the highest rate of reoffending. So adding more prisons has not been working. Its only lead New Zealand emerging back to the early colonial period of imprisonment.

To attack crime, you need to attack poverty, as poverty causes poverty of the mind, and spirit. That leads to crime.

We need to return back to the extended family, and place value on the famiy role in society. There are far more misguided children today roaming the streets getting alcohol drugs and sex early with no parential control.

Then they go to school stonned and are expected to learn.

Politicians for years have placed this under the to hard basket. Now we are left with a nightmare to solve.

We need to turn back the clock a little bit.

20 Jan 2010 01:16p.m.

cynical wrote:

Fudging the issues,as per normal, is Williams. Truth is that he will not see his "clients" as often as he would like to.