Kerre Woodham: Only the worst of the worst are impacted by Three Strikes

Several thousands more offenders are likely to be captured under Three Strikes 2.0 following changes by Cabinet to toughen up the act. These changes, announced this morning, include halving the sentencing threshold for a first strike, and making it retrospective (controversial with lawmakers). That would capture several thousands of the 15,000-odd offenders with strikes to their name under Three Strikes 1.0.  

When it was repealed by Labour, who said it was harsh and punitive and unfair to Māori and Pasifika, you might have thought that anybody who had a first or second strike when it was repealed would see them wiped. No, under this legislation they haven't gone away, they're still there. Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee said the changes were in response to public feedback, saying her initial proposals were too soft, though as they say they're likely to irk the legal community, as making it retrospective raises new tensions with the Bill of Rights Act.  

So, the law is aimed at the worst violent and sexual offenders, imposing on them ever harsher sentences for repeated convictions for certain qualifying offences. Strike one would mean a normal sentence and a warning that the strikes now apply. Strike two means serving the full sentence with no parole. Strike three would mean serving the maximum sentence allowable for the offence, with no possibility of parole. It was introduced in 2010 under National (supported by ACT), repealed in 2022 under Labour, and the Coalition Government said that they would bring it back – and they have done so.  

Officials said the first iteration of Three Strikes was very popular, had all the right notes with voters, but didn't actually work, had no significant quantifiable benefits. They said there's no evidence that the Three Strikes law reduces offending or makes the public feel safer, but what it does do is negatively impact prisoner rehabilitation. Law Association Vice President Julie-Anne Kincaid spoke to the Mike Hosking Breakfast this morning about her disappointment: 

“First of all, there's no evidence that this actually works in the way that people want to work. It's not a deterrence, unfortunately. What we want, all of us want less crime and less serious crime, but this is actually going to capture all sorts of people who shouldn't necessarily be there.  For example, sentencing is very nuanced and difficult, and some people might be sent to jail simply because they don't have a house in which they can do an electronically monitored sentence. It will lead to unfair and unjust outcomes.  

“Sentencing must be nuanced. There are so many factors in human beings that apply. We look first at the offence always in sentencing and the judge takes a starting point based on the offence and then they look at factors that are unique to that offender, and there's a balance that has to be performed with all sentences, and it's complex and that complexity might not always come across in a newspaper article which I think is where a lot of the people who see problems get their information.” 

Well, they do, and we do. When you see that a judge has given a discount for this, a discount for that, a discount for that, a discount for that, it does. Do you see nuance or do you see a judge being soft on crime? And how often do you give the discount? I'm all for giving a discount first time round: you had a terrible upbringing, absolutely appalling, unforgivable that you were raised in an environment like that, little choice but to join a gang because that was the neighbourhood, that was the security, that meant that you weren't going to be abused by your uncle and you commit a crime because you're part of the gang. Okay we understand that that's appalling and we're terribly sorry as a community that that happened to you.  

So now you go to jai

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
You're listening to the carrywood of morning's podcast from News
talks'd B. Several thousands more offenders are likely to be
captured under three Strikes two point oh following changes by
Cabinet to toughen up the Act. These changes announced this
morning include halving the sentencing threshold for a first strike

(00:30):
and making it retrospective. Controversial with lawmakers. That would capture
several thousands of the fifteen thousand odd offenders with strikes
to their name under three strikes one point zero. So
when it was repealed by Labor said it was harsh
and punitive and unfair to Mardi and Pacifica. You might

(00:53):
have thought that anybody who had a first or second
strike under that when it was repealed, would see them wiped. Nope,
under this legislation, they haven't gone away. They're still there.
Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee said the changes were in
response to public feedback, saying her initial proposals were too soft. Though,

(01:14):
as I say, they're likely to irk the legal community
as making it retrospective raises new tensions with the Bill
of Rights Act. So the law is aimed at the
worst violent and sexual offenders, imposing on them ever, harsher
sentences for repeated convictions for certain qualifying offenses. Strike one

(01:37):
would mean a normal sentence and a warning that the
strikes now apply. Strike two means serving the full sentence
with no parole. Strike three would mean serving the maximum
sentence allowable for the offense with no possibility of parole.
So it was introduced in twenty ten under Nationals, supported

(01:59):
by Act, repealed in twenty twenty two under Labour and
the Coalition government said that they would bring it back,
and they have done so. Officials said the first iteration
of three strikes was very popular, had all the right
notes with voters, that didn't actually work, had no significant

(02:20):
quantifiable benefits. They said, there's no evidence that the three
strikes law reduces offending or makes the public feel safer,
but what it does do is negatively impact prisoner Rehabilitation.
Law Association Vice president Julienne Kincaid spoke to the microst
King Breakfast this morning about her disappointment.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
First of all, there's no evidence that this actually works
in the way that people want to work. It's not
other parents. Unfortunately, what we want, all of us want
less crime and less serious crime. But this is actually
going to capture all sorts of people who shouldn't necessarily
be there. For example, something is very nuanced and difficult,
and some people might be sent to jail simply because

(03:03):
they don't have a house in which they can an
electronically monitored sentence. It will lead to unfair and unjust outcome.
Sentencing must be nuanced. There are so many factors in
human beings that apply. We look first at the offense
always in sentencing, and the judge takes a starting point
based on the offense, and then they look at factors
that are unique to that offender. And there's a balance

(03:27):
that has to be performed with all sentences. And it's complex,
and that complexity might not always come across in a
newspaper article, which I think is where a lot of
the people who see problems get their information.

Speaker 1 (03:42):
Well, they do, and we do you know when you
see that a judge has given a discount for this,
a discount for that, a discount for that, a discount
for that, it does I mean do you see nuance
or do you see a judge being soft on crime?
You know? And how often do you give the discount.
I'm also giving a discount first time round like you

(04:06):
had a terrible upbringing, absolutely appalling, unforgivable that you were
raised in an environment like that, little choice but to
join a gang because that was the neighborhood, that was
the security that meant that you weren't going to be
abused by your uncle. And you commit a crime because

(04:28):
you're part of the gang. Okay, we understand that that's
appalling and we're terribly sorry as a community that that
happened to you. So now you go to jail and
if you can take advantage of the rehabilitation programs that
are there, but you can't come out and do it
again and plead the same thing. You can't have a

(04:51):
license to commit crime for the rest of your life
because of your appalling upbringing. You can understand why you
do it, but you can't be excused for it, because
not everybody who has a shocking start in life that
there's still an element of choice and free will in
what you do. So Act two is the party that

(05:13):
supported it when it was first introduced by the Key
government in twenty ten, is unapologetic and says three strikes
sends a signal to violent offenders that New Zealanders won't
tolerate repeated violent and sexual offending. According to Act, the
average three strikes offender has seventy five convictions. So to

(05:39):
even get within the realm of having three strikes, supply
you have to have seventy five previous convictions, not just
appearances in court. This is where you have been found guilty.
Under the previous regime, only twenty four people were sentenced

(05:59):
to a third strike, so it's not being used willy nilly.
The total number of people sentence to a first, second,
or third strike accounted for just one percent of the
people's sentenced in our courts. They were the worst of
the worst. These offenders leave behind a long list of victims,
some of whom will never recover from the trauma. So

(06:24):
I'm okay about that. Seventy five previous convictions for violent
and sexual offending. Yeah, I don't care about your rehab
I actually do feel safer. So if your surveyors or
your questionnaire takers would like to ask me, I'll tell

(06:45):
them I don't care if prisoner rehabilitation is negatively effective,
because after seventy five convictions, it's going to take a
seismic shift within the individual, not a prison program to
rehabilitate them.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
I'm good for more from carry Wood and Mornings.

Speaker 1 (07:05):
Listen to News Talks a B from nine am weekdays,
or follow the podcast on iHeartRadio