McVicar’s 3 Strikes for Young Offenders Policy packed with Bad Ideas

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has excelled itself, with its ‘Three Strikes Policy for Young Offenders”, says Kim Workman, Director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment.

“I have never seen so many bad and unworkable ideas packed into six short sentences.”

He was commenting on an open letter sent to all Members of Parliament by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, which included a ‘3 strikes’ proposal for youth offenders.

Sensible Sentencing Trust Three –Strike youth offending proposal:

Strike 1: Full reimbursement of damages and costs. Parents to be responsible along with Youth Offender. Compulsory enrolment in sport or recreational activity.

Strike 2: As in Strike 1, plus compulsory referral to Youth Court and additional punishment. Supervised work such as rubbish and graffiti clean up.

Strike 3: As in Strike 1 & 2 plus mandatory sentence to ABCD Camps [Military Activity Camps]

The simplistic ‘one size fits all’ measures promoted by Garth McVicar and the Sensible Sentencing Trust, fall into two categories. In the first category, some of his proposals may contribute to a reduction in reoffending for some children and their families, in some circumstances. Some whanau and families will be able to carry the responsibility of full reimbursement and costs; others may commit further crime to satisfy a Court order of that kind. Under the right conditions, children and young people can make reparation through work and community service, in a way which brings home to them, the harm they have done to victims and the community. Such penalties are already available within the system. But each case is different – there is no silver bullet.

The problem with Garth McVicar is that he wants to prescribe such penalties in advance. Rethinking believes that each case must be considered on its merits. For example, forcing children to play sport or recreation fails to recognise that each child is unique and has special gifts or skills that could be nurtured. Applying such penalties indiscriminately will only cause further harm.

The second category that the SST promotes are based on the idea that punishing an offender harshly works, as does accelerating their appearance before the Courts. The evidence makes it clear that:

• ‘Naming and Shaming’ of the sort envisaged by Garth McVicar, doesn’t work. Holding offenders accountable, and ensuring they are integrated back into their family or whanau without loss of mana or self respect does.

• Pushing children and youth offenders toward the Youth Court at an early stage is a certain way of ensuring that young offenders become a long term client of the criminal justice system. The evidence is clear; the longer we can defer appearance before the Youth Court, the more likely a youth offender will stop offending. The most accurate predictor of future offending is past incarceration.

• There is no evidence that Boot Camps, (or MAC Camps) work for serious young offenders. While visitors to MAC Camp graduation ceremonies may be overwhelmed by their bright, shining faces, once those offenders are released back to their dysfunctional homes, reality takes over. The idea that a three month boot camp experience can magically change a lifetime of abuse and dysfunction is naïve – even though it may get votes.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust should abandon their ‘Badlands’ book, and take the time to read the report of the government’s Task Force on Child and Youth Development, which will become public this week. That will help them to understand that their ideas are without and scientific foundation, and will not work.

Kim Workman

© Scoop Media