Here We Go Again

Crime and Punishment

Garth McVicar has written an opinion piece in the NZ Herald on crime and prisons in New Zealand. 

The saying, "We reap what we sow", highlights the farming experience that if you don't work in partnership with nature, you get a dud crop. It comes to mind when I think about the latest twist in the crime and punishment debate; the number of people in prisons.  The focus on the product of crime, prisoners and victims, gives little attention to the root causes of the problem. That is to say, we are worried by what we're reaping and not enough by what we're sowing.

Minister of Justice Andrew Little wants to find ways to reduce the prison population. Essentially, this will be achieved by softening bail legislation and making parole easier to get.  The result will be more offenders on the streets. The streets will become more dangerous and public safety will suffer as a consequence.

The inconvenient truth about high prison rates is that crime has fallen. New Zealand's homicides peaked at 176 a year but have now declined to around 80 per year and are still falling.  As New Zealand locked up its criminals for longer, the terrible crimes that resulted in the formation of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, such as those against Teresa Cormack, Kylie Smith and Karla Cardno, have declined. But locking people up is a response to criminals, not the complete answer to preventing the creation of criminals.

Violent crime rates are dropping substantially in New Zealand.  Prison numbers are rising.  McVicar argues that there is a causal connection between these two hard statistical measures.  In other words, the reason violent crime statistics are reducing is due to violent offenders being kept longer in prison. 

The extremely liberal Labour Government finds this offensive.  Labour denies McVicar's causal link. Its position appears to be this: when it reduces prison numbers as it plans to do, it will have no effect on the incidence of violent crime in New Zealand.  Rather, Labour's position appears to be that reducing prison numbers will create a virtuous circle whereby reducing the number of people in prisons will actually reduce criminal offending in New Zealand. 

That is an extremely bold position to hold.  But there it is.  Labour in all its glory. 

Actually, in order to get to Labour's naive position, they have to add in a couple of suppressed, or hidden, premises.  Their whole case turns upon these not-so-often-talked-about beliefs.

Oh How Clever We Are . . .

Crime and Punishment

The present NZ Government appears all at sea over crime and criminality.  In a nutshell, its naive and simplistic view is that crime is caused by social problems.  Fix society's problems within the sectors of Health, Education, and Welfare, and crime would drop away to nothing.  As is always the case, the Left runs this reductionist absurdity with a high octane dose of self-righteousness.

The Left sees itself as compassionate and nuanced on the matter.  It is deeply aware of the social causes of crime and criminality which have captured people, turning them into criminals.  It's love for such disadvantaged folk who have ended up in the prison system quickly morphs into self-righteousness.  It characterizes its ideological opponents as cruel, simplistic, narrow, and bigoted.  This implies that the Left is compassionate, nuanced, sophisticated, and broad-minded.

• The Left presents itself as intelligent, advanced, and sophisticated.  It refuses to address criminality in a superficial manner.  It relishes the complexity of the social causes of crime because to pontificate and meditate upon such things creates a self-image of Leftist sophistication and intelligence.  Those who oppose Leftist sophistication are easily and readily characterised as red-necks.
  
• The Left relishes the prospect of the State being cast as the Saviour and Redeemer of society.  Prisons are essentially negative in the "solutions" they offer to crime.  They punish by their very nature.  But the Left sees  that as both negative and cruel.  On the other hand, to use the power, resources, and functions of the State to redeem people from criminal lifestyles, is a high and holy calling.

At this point, the Left is feeling really good about itself.  Oozing moral superiority it stands forth as the Great Solution to NZ crime and criminality. Cue Andrew Little, the present Minister of Justice.

The Man Who Would Put Things Right

Cuddling Up To Recidivist Criminals

Andrew Little, Minister of Justice in New Zealand, is committed to removing New Zealand's Three Strikes Law.  He calls it a total failure.  In so doing he is being disingenuous--and he knows it.  The NZ Three Strikes law was carefully crafted to ensure that it gradually came in effect over time, allowing offenders plenty of warning of the increasing penalties they faced if they continued to commit serious crimes.  

Moreover, the law as passed was scrupulous to ensure that judges had the right to override the law in the event of unintended outcomes.  But Little argues that the ineffectiveness of the law is proven by the fact that over eight years, it has not reduced crime one little bit, and no-one has received a third strike sentence.  He well knows that it the law was intended to come into force gradually and it is only now that our worst recidivist offenders are facing their final Third Strike, meaning a mandatory,  fully served sentence would be handed down.  But, says Little in a master stroke of duplicity, the fact that it has made no difference over eight years "proves" the law has failed.

Naive Leftist Politicians

Crime and Punishment

The new leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is Simon Bridges.  He has been moving around New Zealand introducing himself to the country.  As part of "the tour" he visited his old secondary school, Rutherford College.

Here are some excerpts from his speech.

Because I will be asking for your vote in 2020, I believe you have the right to know who I am. You should know what drives me and what I stand for.  I grew up a Westie – one with a blended background.  My mum is Pakeha and Dad is Māori.  We lived near enough to here that I walked to school. As a family, we weren’t well off, but we never went without.  I am the youngest of six children. . . .  

Growing up, my parents instilled in me a strong sense of right and wrong.  Dad was a Baptist minister at the church around the corner from here, so as well as being a supportive family we were taught the value of serving the community.  . . .

But even those who have tough childhoods do not need to be defined or limited by that. All of us have the ability to better ourselves, and improve our lot in life.  That belief is part of what drew me to the National Party.  I am ambitious for New Zealanders.  I back New Zealanders to succeed on their own two feet.  I back enterprise, and I think that people who take a risk and do well, and those who work hard, and who contribute to their communities, should be celebrated.  I also have a fundamental belief in personal responsibility. You can take pride in doing well, but you should take responsibility if you do harm.

As I said, I studied law. First, in Auckland, then at Oxford University, in England. . . .  My career in the law led me to become a Crown prosecutor.  I was responsible for making the case to a judge or jury in court that someone was guilty and should go to jail.  Over time, I was in charge of hundreds of trials, sometimes dealing with the worst things one person can do to another.

Assaults, rapes and murders.  It was a role of huge contrasts. Many days I was depressed by the dark side of human behaviour.  But other times I was inspired by the resilience of victims, and sometimes by previous offenders who were gradually putting their lives back together.  One particular case will be with me forever.

Justice Minister Little Vs Reality

Up Close and Personal With Thuggery

A harrowing story has been published in the NZ media.  The case involved a private individual going about his lawful business only to be struck down by a "coward's punch".  Here we have a completely innocent victim being singled out for a sneaky sucker punch, just for the "pleasure" of the perp being able to show how powerful and significant he is.  

Tanner - a professional chef who has still (been) unable to return to work - said the assault came on an evening of celebration with his partner Charleen Trass with the couple having just realised years of hard work to buy their first home.  "We had been working so hard to achieve our goals. It was a rare night out," said Tanner.

The Kerikeri couple had bought tickets to go to the Marley NZ All Stars Show, a reggae collective playing at Waipapa's Kainui Road Vineyard. They had arranged care for their four children and were going with family and friends to the midday soundcheck - care of tickets won by Trass' sister - before the evening's entertainment.  [NZ Herald]

A local Northland MP, Matt King happened to be at the same event when he saw the perpetrator, Jaydin Locke commit a heinous crime.  He described what he saw:

Expected Demise of the Government

"If You Treat Us Nicely We Will Stop"

That did not take long.  The brand new Labour led New Zealand government has unsheathed a kukri knife and commenced the slow death of a thousand self-inflicted cuts.  Sometimes governments and elites risk become so enmeshed in their self-spun ideology that they depart from reality to another world.  And so, within a matter of months, it has come to pass in New Zealand.

The Minister of Justice is a fine fellow.  He has declared that the prison roll in New Zealand must be reduced.  This is to come about by a profoundly clever strategy.  He will shorten prison sentences, let more criminals out on bail, treat criminals nicely, and voila, crime will drop.  To naive, stupid Andrew Little, Minister of Justice the solution to overcrowded prisons is simple: treat people "kindly" and overnight they will become model citizens, who offend no more.  He has been encouraged to think along these lines by an (ostensible) chorus of elite academics who have assured him that his strategy will be a winner.

Hard Baked Human Depravity

No Hope In This World

There is a growing "class" of people in New Zealand who give every indication they are beyond redemption.  The clay has been in the oven far too long.  It has baked into hard, intractable lines.  

The people found in the "baked clay" class have sometimes been referred to as the Underclass.  These are people who are locked into an endless cycle of destructive behaviour, including self-destruction.  In recent days a case was profiled in the media which illustrates what goes on in the thoroughly baked underclass.

He was the best boyfriend she ever had.  Kind-hearted, helpful and selfless, she said.  But seven weeks on, she was thinking differently – and irrationally. He was a snake, a snitch and spreading rumours.  Over four hours in a friend's kitchen, she tied his hands behind his back, stripped him and assaulted him with punches and kicks.   She then marched him out of the flat and took him to the desolate state house where she lived with her pregnant sister. There she wrapped a computer cord around his neck and strangled him. Police found his body the next day wrapped in a red faux mink blanket under a double bed.  [Stuff]

Zariah Jae Samson, 25, at her sentencing for manslaughter last year.

The events are horrific.  The crime deserved a severe sanction.  Yet there is a back story to Samson that goes a long way to explain (not justify) who she is and what she has become.

Penalties And Recidivist Offending

Implicitly Just

As we have mentioned before in these pages, New Zealand has a Three Strikes Law.  It is definitely better crafted than Three Strikes legislation in our countries--in our view.  One better aspect is that a list of offences has been stipulated which qualify as Three Strike offences.  The intent is to restrict Three Strikes risk and liability to serious criminal offences only.  

We have recently had our first Third Strike offence and judgement issued.  This has prompted discussion about how effective our Three Strikes legislation is, and how just it may be.  In fact it was an interesting test case, attracting some controversy.  As is so often the case in such matters, the media are busy parroting the views of judges who feel that their god-like discretion has been unduly removed.  What is not being reiterated by said opinionistas is that the public had grown progressively annoyed at judges handing down sentences way less than the maxima allowed for serial criminal offenders--leading to a demand for Three Strikes laws.

In the first place, the offence that brought this particular Three Strikes liability and its resultant sentence was one which seemed minor, at first glance.  A criminal in prison under his Second Strike offence thought it would be cute to grope the rear of a female prison guard, which in New Zealand law constitutes an indecent assault and which has a maximum jail term of seven years.

Letter From the UK (About Prisons)

Fifty Years of 'Enlightened' Jails

Peter Hitchens
Daily Mail Australia

Modern politicians don’t like taking responsibility for anything difficult. They hate the idea that you sometimes have to punish people. That’s understandable. Locking people up and making them work hard and do as they’re told isn’t very nice.

But if you can’t bear the burden, then don’t seek paid public office. These nasty tasks are the most basic duty of the State. If it won’t protect us from the wicked, then we might as well wind it up.
We have disarmed in the face of danger. Until about 50 years ago, the stated aim of prisons was ‘the due punishment of responsible persons’. Under a clear criminal code, most crooks and most louts were scared of prison and tried not to go there. It wasn’t some savage place of torture and beatings.

By world standards our prisons were very civilised. But they were austere, disciplined and under the control of the authorities.

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.

Race, Recidvism and Reform: The Centrality of the Family

We Can’t Reform Our Justice System Without Lifting Families

Racial injustice plays a role in the incarceration of so many black men, but so does the breakdown of the black family.

Ken Blackwell and Rob Schwarzwalder
The Federalist

Common-sense criminal sentencing reform is gaining momentum. Presidential candidate Jeb Bush and Family Research Council President Tony Perkins are among the signers of the Right on Crime Statement of Principles, which argues for applying “conservative principles to criminal justice policy” as “vital to achieving a cost-effective system that protects citizens, restores victims, and reforms wrongdoers.” Earlier this year, a collation of extraordinary political bedfellows—ranging from Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley to Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz—published a book of essays titled, “Solutions: American Leaders Speak Out on Criminal Justice Reform.”

What’s going on? Perkins, a former police officer, knows firsthand what is at stake when sentences are arbitrary, harsh, and simply unjust. He explains why so many political and other leaders are coming together on this critical issue.  Writing in 2013 about how to deal with nonviolent criminals, Perkins said, “Violent and career criminals must be locked up to protect society, and we must also exclude offenders whose crimes endanger their own children … But for many nonviolent offenders, we should do all we can to keep families together while maintaining public safety.”

Fire Swamps and Rodents of Unusual Size

Crime and Punishment--NZ Style

New Zealand has lost any meaningful framework in which to discuss how criminals should be appropriately sentenced.  In fact, we now live and move in such a confused contradictory morass that some sections of society will criticize any and every judicial sentence.  The respective criticisms will come from widely divergent philosophical and religious bases, so that whatever the circumstances, whatever the offending, sentencing will be controversial.  It will never satisfy the community as a whole. 

Here is a short list of some of the polar opposite positions on the punishment of crime.

There are those who believe that all human begins are born intrinsically good.  Any evil they commit is a result of external factors, such as their family circumstances.  Therefore, all criminals are ultimately victims of society.

State Terrorism

Cruel and Unjust Punishment

With the execution of the Bali Nine in Indonesia the death penalty has come back into the frame.  According to Wikipedia, Indonesia maintains the ultimate judicial sanction for nineteen offences:

• Attempt with intent to deprive the President or Vice-President of his or her life or liberty or to render him or her unfit to govern (Indonesian Criminal Code (Kitab UU Hukum Pidana – KUHP) Art. 104)
• Aiding or protecting Indonesia’s enemies at war (KUHP Art. 123 & 124)
• Fraud in delivery of military materials in time of war (KUHP Art. 127)
• Killing the head of state of a friendly state (KUHP Art. 140)
• Premeditated murder (KUHP Art. 340)
• Robbery or theft resulting in grave injury or death (KUHP Art. 365)
• Piracy resulting in death (KUHP Art. 444)
• Instigating or inciting rebellion or riot against a state defense company during times of war (KUHP)
• Extortion with violence (KUHP)
• Possession and misuse of firearm and/or other explosive (Emergency Law No. 12/1951)
• Criminal acts during air flights or against aviation infrastructure (Law No. 4/1976)
• Production, transit, import and possession of psychotropic drugs (Law No. 5/1997 on Psychotropic Drugs)
• Production, transit, import and possession of narcotics (Law No. 22/1997 on Narcotics)
• Corruption under “certain circumstances,” including repeat offenders and corruption committed during times of national emergency/disaster (Law No. 31/1999 on Corruption)
• Gross violations of human rights, including genocide and crimes against humanity (Law No. 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts)
• Acts of terrorism (Law No. 15/2003 on Combating Criminal Acts of Terrorism)

However, in actuality only murder and drug trafficking have resulted in the ultimate penalty being handed out.  But more sinister is the fact that the death penalty has been applied in Indonesia extremely rarely (whether for murder or drug trafficking) until this year (2015), where fourteen people have been executed for drug trafficking thus far.

It seems as though a political campaign is underway in Indonesia.

Highest Second Strike Sentence

Law is Working Exactly as Intended

David Garrett
New Zealand

Left leaning pundits have reacted with glee to two recent cases in which Judges have invoked the “manifestly unjust” provision in the “three strikes” (3S) law to avoid what would otherwise have been a sentence of life without parole (LWOP) for two second strikers convicted of murder. I doubt they will say much about Hugh Hemi Tuatua Tareha, who yesterday received the longest “second strike” sentence yet – 12 years nine months –  for sexually assaulting an 87 year old woman.

Tareha is pretty much the epitome of the type of offender 3S was intended to take out of circulation – a violent offender with a lengthy history who has a propensity for sexually attacking elderly women. A propensity which – according to a psychiatric report – is “escalating”, a view which the Probation Service shares.

His most recent offence was not just committed while on parole, but the day after  he had appeared before the Parole Board, which wanted to monitor his progress. At that appearance he fooled the Parole Board a second time – the first was when he was released a year into a sentence of three years nine months for the robbery of an elderly woman because the Board believed he could be “managed in the community”.

At his appearance on  6 November last Tareha, according to media reports,  convinced the Parole Board that he was, “motivated to make changes”.

Monarchical Tyranny Redivivus

Rotting Sores

George Will is a seasoned, right-of-centre columnist in the United States.  He penned an open letter to Loretta Lynch, who is the nominee for US Attorney General.  She is soon to be examined by the Senate.

In Will's letter, he raises a number of disturbing features of the US judicial system--features which appal advocates and commentators on both left and right. 

Senate confirmation hearings put nominees on notice that, as a Michigan state legislator reportedly once said, “I’m watching everything you do with a fine-toothed comb.” Loretta Lynch, a talented lawyer and seasoned U.S. attorney, should be confirmed as attorney general. Her hearing, however, should not be perfunctory.

Questions like the following would highlight some festering problems:

Next year is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, which began the slow, serpentine progress to our modern panoply of rights, including those of persons accused of serious crimes. Today, however, regarding sexual misconduct on campuses, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights uses the threat of withdrawing federal funding to coerce colleges and universities into jettisoning crucial defendants’ protections when adjudicating, in improvised tribunals, accusations of sexual assault. Presumption of innocence? The new presumption is that accusations are valid until disproved. The right to confront one’s accuser? No, it would be traumatizing to the “survivor” (note the prejudgment). Proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Now a mere “preponderance of the evidence” will suffice. Are you comfortable with this traducing of due process?

The presumption of innocence and the need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt are fundamental to our Anglo-Saxon systems of justice.

Crime and Punishment

Three Strikes About to Bite Hard

David Garrett, former ACT MP
Republished from Kiwiblog

When the three strikes (3S) bill was making its way through parliament I told Clayton Cosgrove – in response to an interjection – that it might be ten to fifteen years before 3S would really start to bite. Although Cosgrove immediately tried to make capital from my answer, I was not  unhappy with that prediction – in fact I thought it a little optimistic. In my view we have taken a generation to get into the mess we are in with violent offending, and it might take a generation to reverse it. It seems I was unduly pessimistic.

Unless there are extremely good reasons which would preclude such a result, we are about to get our first  “strike” offender sentenced to Life Without Parole ("LWOP") for murder as a second strike.  Justin Vance Turner, aged 28, has pleaded guilty to murder. It is his second “strike” offence, and accordingly, he should be sentenced to LWOP in accordance with s.86E (2) of the Sentencing Act. That section requires that a stage two offender guilty of murder should serve a sentence of LWOP “unless the court is satisfied that given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, it would be manifestly unjust to do so.”

The “manifestly unjust” provision was one of the conditions the National Party required in order for them to support the 3S Bill beyond first reading.

Prisoners and the Vote

Sensible Sentencing

A career criminal and (now) jail-house lawyer is taking a case to the High Court attempting to overturn legislation which denies prisoners the vote.  The case has been inspired by the European Court of Human Rights which has infamously ruled that denial of suffrage to prisoners violates their human rights.  New Zealand's own Bill of Rights--a piece of statutory law--declares voting to be a, you guessed it, human right.

The argument being made amounts to question-begging of the highest order.  Point One: denial of suffrage to prisoners is a prima facie violation of the NZ Human Rights Act.  Point Two: denial of suffrage is cruel and unusual punishment, since it does not contribute in any meaningful way to the rehabilitation of prisoners. Point Three: the European Court of Human Rights ruling is a fantastic precedent, which has all sorts of implications for antediluvians in the Antipodes.

The question begged is this: does incarceration represent any removal or diminution or denial of any human rights--declared and ostensibly protected in the NZ Human Rights Act--at all?  One would imagine so.  Being told when to rise, when to comply with "lights out", when to eat, what to wear, where to go, where not to go, and how to conduct oneself at all times, with retributive punishment for non-compliance, violates just about every freedom right imaginable.  So, if the argument that denial of suffrage for prisoners amounts to a breach of the NZ Human Rights Act is deemed correct, all incarceration of convicted criminals must also breach that Act. But if incarceration of prisoners in this country does not breach the NZ Human Rights Act, then neither can withdrawing suffrage from them. 

We are aware that some folk philosophically oppose retributive punishment of any kind for criminals.

Letter From Al Jazeera (About Crime and Punishment in New Zealand)

Restoring Hope

In New Zealand the Maori model of restorative justice uses indigenous cultural practices as a vehicle for social change.

[The following video (and written commentary) appeared on Al Jazeera about New Zealand.  It demonstrates powerfully the biblical truth that justice is to be a restorative process, with perpetrators making restitution to the victims.  When done properly, this not only helps heal the victims but it restores the perpetrators to a position where they are able to live productive and useful lives.  In New Zealand, this sits alongside the state judicial system, not as an alternative or substitute.  While the piece is lengthy, it is well worth viewing. 

We have one qualification we believe is worth making.  The principles and processes are portrayed here as Maori.  Whilst in this case, Maori are applying them, they are not intrinsically indigenous (as witnessed by the diversity of ethnicities involved).  Rather, they are human.  They are Christian, and biblically grounded.  Ed.]




New Zealand’s restorative justice model brings victims, offenders and their families together to sit down and discuss the crime committed and the impact it has had on everyone involved.

Going Surety Needs to be Re-Instituted

Reforming The Parole System

Most Western judicial systems have problems with the parole system.  Criminals, let out early, often re-offend.  An Australian correspondent, for instance, recently complained about the state of the parole system in that country:

Unbelievably, across Australia there have been more than 20 people who’ve been killed by criminals on parole in the last five years.  That is disgusting.  More broadly, the Bureau of Crime Statistics has ­reported, 64 per cent of crooks on parole reoffend within two years of release. [Jason Morrison, The Daily Telegraph.]

We have two suggestions.

The Return of the Exile

Get Out of Town

The ancient classical world had a punishment in its judicial menu which has long since been discarded and until recently had become part of a long discarded past.  The rise of nation states put paid to it.  We are thinking of the punishment of exile.  When nuisance-causing citizens, or citizens causing embarrassment to rulers, or general miscreants came before the courts in the ancient world, exile was often the sentence of choice (not for slaves, or non-citizens, of course, who usually lacked legal standing of any sort). 

In these days, exiling would mean delivering the miscreant to another nation state, which usually has its own strict border controls and which would refuse to admit the exile.  Hence, the punishment being no longer feasible.  However, given half a chance, it returns.  Most recently we have seen a variant of it with respect to Australia and New Zealand.  Citizens of the latter country who have chosen to live in Australia (often for many years) and who fall foul of the law are finding themselves being exiled back to New Zealand. Understandably, we in New Zealand are not amused.

Another modern manifestation of the punishment of exile has surfaced in the state and city of New York.