"Three Strikes" Punishment Is an Inherently Just Concept

Dishonest Brokers

In general we are pretty happy with New Zealand's Three Strikes law.  It has been carefully crafted to avoid some of the inequities usually associated with such laws, such as being locked up (in some cases for life) when three relatively minor offences are committed.  The New Zealand law restricts the offences falling under the aegis of Three Strikes to those involving serious criminal acts. 

We believe the underlying principle of Three Strikes is just: serial criminal offences multiply guilt and  subsequent offences by a recidivist should be regarded as more aggravated crimes than earlier ones.  Subsequent offending is against greater knowledge on the part of the criminal, who, as a result of previous convictions and sentences, cannot claim ignorance, carelessness, or a general lack of awareness of how evil his actions were and are.
  From the perspective of the Bible, the judge is the minister and servant of God Himself.  When the court convicts and the judge sentences they are doing so as God's official representatives.  Disregarding the previous judgements and sentences received, and going forth to commit further crimes magnifies guilt because rebelliousness and contumely is now added to the crime.  Subsequent crimes necessarily have aspects of civil insurrection included in the criminal acts.  Greater guilt requires more severe punishments.  Properly constructed Three Strikes laws are inherently just. 


Stuff provides a run down on the law:

The Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010, or the "three strikes act", came into force on June 1, 2010. It meant any offender aged 18 or over who committed one of 40 offences, including all major and sexual offences, would receive a strike on their first conviction. A second strike would see the offender serving their full sentence without parole. On a third strike, a judge must impose the maximum penalty. It must be served without parole unless the court believes that would be manifestly unjust. The bill was strongly opposed by Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party. By the end of last month there were 2684 offenders on their first strike and 17 on their second strike.

 So far, so good.  Now, however, a case has arisen which critics are claiming demonstrates the injustice of the Law.  One Elijah Akeem Whaanga, 21 has had his second "strike", meaning that if he commits a further strike offence he will be sentenced to the maximum penalty without parole.  The problem is that this fellow was engaged in petty thefts.  At least that's what the critics are alleging.

Professor Warren Bucklands of Auckland University's Faculty of Law said Whaanga's case made a mockery of its promoters' claim that it would target only "the worst of the worst". "Whaanga's case is an inevitable consequence of the way in which the legislation was drafted and, what's more, was known to Parliament when it was passed," he said.Rethinking Crime and Punishment spokesman Kim Workman said the public needed to think about the cost of locking someone up for 14 years for robbing a boy of a cap and a cellphone.

We believe these criticisms to be deliberately disingenuous. Whaanga is on his second strike not because of petty theft, but because his thefts involved aggravated assaults against his victims.  It is the violence against his victims that has brought him under the aegis of the Three Strikes Law.  Both Professor Bucklands and Mr Workman elide over these facts, which, to our mind, makes them dishonest brokers. 

Whaanga's offending stretches back to 2006, including burglary, theft, resisting arrest and indecent assault. He served a short prison sentence in early 2010. In July that year, he and an accomplice committed aggravated robbery. Whaanga punched the victim in the head multiple times before taking $68. For that he earned his first strike in December 2010 and was sentenced to jail for two years and one month.

He was freed on parole in April last year. The Parole Board said he had behaved well in prison, where he had resided in the Maori Focus Unit. He had completed a drug programme and a Maori therapeutic programme and was released on a number of conditions for six months. Four months later he committed two aggravated robberies with two separate accomplices. The first involved taking a skateboard, hat and cigarette lighter from the victim after trying unsuccessfully to remove the victim's jacket. The second involved Whaanga kicking the victim in the back of his leg and taking his hat and cellphone.

The cynical counsel that our dishonest brokers should be giving Whaanga is this: "when you get out, mate, from your second strike sentence (two and a half years without parole) we suggest you restrain your offending to picking pockets and other petty larceny.  Keep your fists and your boots to yourself."

Three Strikes in an inherently just concept; the NZ law appears well crafted.  Those who oppose it, dishonestly or otherwise, need to explain why they favour the injustice of ignoring the greater guilt implicit in repeated criminal acts.