Rising Above the Law?

Critical Cases

Sometimes Christians get confused about how God's justice and mercy relate together.  Sometimes poorly taught Christians think that the wonderful display of God's infinite mercy in Jesus Christ must mean that Christians ought not to encourage the execution of justice upon a malefactor.  They come to believe that the only interaction between Christians and the justice system should be to express compassion and mercy upon the guilty, and to labour hard for the incarcerate's rehabilitation.  

Unfortunately, those who think thus know not the holiness of God, nor His mercy.  Yet the Scriptures are full of holding these two divine attributes of God's being--justice and mercy--together.  Our duty is to do likewise to the best of our ability.  The dying thief on the cross understood this better than many modern Christians.  In rebuking his fellow malefactor, he said, "We both deserve our punishment, but the Christ does not."  [Luke 23: 39-43] Then he called out to Christ for mercy, and was received into His Kingdom immediately.

Christians are to be concerned about justice and grace.  It follows that Christians should always be concerned about the justice system--its goals, its motives, and its standards.  We believe (because Scripture teaches) that the civil magistrate is a servant (deacon) of God to administer His wrath, in this life, upon evildoers.  [Romans 13: 1-4]  Therefore we treat the justice system with fear and respect; yet we also do all we can to reach out to prisoners to extend to them the love and mercy of God.

At this blog we have previously endorsed our "Three Strikes" law.  It is better than most.  It is written in a careful, balanced way.
 It seeks justice for those who have demonstrated incorrigibility in that they have committed a series of violent, capital crimes.  It extends the punishment for those who demonstrate they are hardened recidivists.  The law is fundamentally just (as written) in a Christian sense, for repeated criminality brings greater guilt and therefore greater, more severe punishment.  [Deuteronomy 21: 18-21]

Three Strikes became law in New Zealand in 2010.  A summary of its provisions can be found here.  We have now progressed to the stage where some recidivist criminals have committed their third capital crime under the Three Strikes regime.  The law calls for life imprisonment without parole for such offenders.  However, judges are given discretion: they can lessen this penalty if they deem that it would be "extremely unfair or manifestly unjust".

This introduces a risk.  There may well be judges on the bench who believe that a punishment of life imprisonment without parole is necessarily, by definition, "extremely unfair and manifestly unjust".  Yet this is not what the law stipulates.  So, will judges be subject to the law; or will they override the law according to the warrant of their own autonomous conscience?

It's too early to tell.  However, it will soon be tested.

Crown Law is lodging an appeal in two cases where judges refused to send criminals to prison for the rest of their lives under the three-strikes law.  The law, which was an ACT Party initiative to deal with repeat violent offending, states if a murder is committed on a second or third strike, the punishment is automatically life without parole.

But a judge can give a minimum non-parole period instead if they feel a lifetime in prison would be extremely unfair or manifestly unjust.  Life without parole has never been imposed in New Zealand - and ACT says the appeals should determine whether judges have been too lenient in interpreting the three-strikes law.

One of the two sentences being appealed is that of Justin Turner, who could be serving life in prison with no prospect of parole for the 2014 murder of Auckland man Maqbool Hussain.  The judge decided to sentence him to life with a 15 year minimum non-parole period, in part because Turner had shown remorse.  Mr Hussain's cousin, Aurang Zeb, said the family were disappointed with the sentence.  "Well, they're not happy, because 15, 17 years, it's not good enough - because he's coming back from the jail in almost eight or nine years.  He's coming back to the people. He's a very dangerous man. He killed a person just for nothing."

The other case is the sentence of Shane Harrison, who was given a minimum non-parole period of 13 years for the murder of Alonsio "Sio" Matalasi in 2013.   In court, the victim's father, Isfeta Matalasi, had asked the judge to be lenient as he hoped Harrison could learn compassion.

Crown Law is also considering adding two more recent cases to the appeal.  In February, Turei Kingi was given life with a minimum non-parole period of 13 years for the 2015 murder of Jacques Donker in Hamilton, and Ben Bosch Herkt will serve 12 years without parole for the murder of Matthew Greenslade in Papakura in 2014.

In both cases, the judges felt it would be manifestly unjust to give them life without parole, as it would mean them spending at least 40 or 50 years in prison.  [RNZ]

The issue here is whether the judges involved have interpreted the law correctly and have used their discretion lawfully--that is, in a manner subject to the law itself.  We will follow the appeals with great interest.  A lot hangs on these cases.