The government’s new policy for dealing with the worst of our repeat offenders actually has my guarded support. That’s a surprise to me, anyway, and probably to some of my readers, because I’m also a staunch opponent of the increasingly disheartening “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” mentality.
I support restorative justice policies and programmes as a first option for many offenders. After that, I believe that every criminal should be given at least one chance of rehabilitation while serving their sentence, together with a realistic post-prison opportunity to prove rehab has happened. I believe that well-managed parole programmes provide a good way of achieving the inevitable transition from prison to society. And I believe that long, harsh jail sentences usually satisfy only those seeking vengeance, and in fact rarely act as a deterrent and almost never as a tool for rehabilitation.
But I also believe that there are some people who, usually due to some factors in their neglected upbringing or some serious psychopathology, are beyond rehabilitation by conventional methods. They have performed a pattern of violent crimes against people over a long period of time, despite opportunities to turn their lives around.
Repeat violent offenders may still be capable of rehabilitation, but the chances are so low that I believe a line has to be drawn. These people – a small minority I believe – must simply be kept off the streets for as long as possible, and not only for the sake of public safety. They are probably a danger to themselves as well.
The “three strikes” policy (a catchy rip-off title from baseball-mad America) now has enough support to be passed into New Zealand law. It will see graded punishments for serious offenders over three offences.
Of course, the first offences will be treated as they always have been, with adjudicated sentences and the possibility of parole providing an incentive to rehab. We don’t know at that point that there will or won’t be any repeats after the sentence is served. To me it’s like anyone who I deal with daily: until they do me wrong, I’ll give them unquestioned trust. If they wrong me once, I’ll be much more careful with them in future but will still allow some benefit of the doubt.
A second serious offence will mean a standard sentence but no parole. Yes, some people may need a second reminder of where their decisions and offences are taking them, before they finally get it. In my personal life analogy, if I’m wronged a second time, I would normally put myself in a position of not having to deal with that person again, but I wouldn’t go on a personal vendetta.
Under Three Strikes, a third serious offence will mean the maximum allowable sentence and no parole. In many cases this will mean never getting out (a true life sentence) and as I’ve said, I think this is justifiable more often than not.
So I give considered support for this approach.
I don’t believe three strikes will be a deterrent – in fact it may well encourage a third-time rapist to kill, knowing he will “get life” anyway so why not minimise the evidence that could implicate him.
And I would detest such a law if it was enacted mainly to satisfy the routine calls for vengeance by victims and the Stupid Sentencing Trust.
I will support it if it’s seen mainly as a humane way of keeping society safer when all other alternative forms of action have been tried.
good stuff.
Hi,I’m taking some time to write you a comment. I hope you don’t mind I’ve bookmarked your page, your post is really usefull for me. Sophia x
[...] I also wrote about this in January when the policy was announced and steps began to enact it. You can read what I had to say then. [...]
Hello webmaster I like your post ….