Three Strikes Legislation "Counter Productive"

“The proposed three strikes legislation effectively transfers discretion from the judiciary to the Police” says Kim Workman, Director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. “If introduced, the Police will need to be closely monitored to ensure that the law is not discharged in an unfair or discriminatory manner.”

“Under the proposed legislation, the Police could for example, lay a charge of assault of aggravated injury against an offender, which is a three strikes offence. They could then plea bargain with the offender, and reduce the charge to aggravated assault, which is not eligible, on condition that the offender pleaded guilty to thelesser charge. Police overcharging is a major issue in New Zealand, with around 10% of all charges laid by the Police being subsequently withdrawn.

“Judges on the other hand, can only decline to sentence under the three strikes legislation, when it would be ‘manifestly unjust’ to do so. All the discretion lies with the Police.”

“The proposed legislation is a distinct improvement on the original bill, developed by the ACT/Sensible Sentencing Advocacy Team, and avoids a life sentence or 25 years on the third strike. However, experience elsewhere shows that:

• Longer sentences lead to increased offending on release, and thus increases the number of victims;

• Offenders sentenced without parole lack the motivation to reform, and can become a major management problem in the prison;

• Offenders facing a ‘third strike’ offence, are more likely to commit even more serious acts of violence to avoid conviction, and are more likely to intimidate witnesses and victims.

• In whanau and family offences, victims are less likely to report serious violence offences, if they know the offender is going to prison for a long time

• A pattern of discriminatory application of the ‘three strikes’ legislation against ethnic minorities

It is a counter-productive piece of legislation.

ends

© Scoop Media