Critics Should Understand 'Three Strikes' Before they Criticise

Quite possibly the most controversial policy to come before Parliament this year, ACT's 'Three Strikes and You're Out' policy came one step closer to becoming law this week when the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill passed its first reading in the House.

Inclusion of 'Three Strikes' in the Bill is part of the National/ACT Confidence & Supply Agreement. National pledged to introduce the policy to Parliament and give it a fair hearing in Select Committee based on the evidence and submissions received.

Drafted by ACT Law & Order Spokesman David Garrett, the policy is designed to provide a strong deterrent to violent crime by ensuring that our most vicious criminals are punished appropriately - and, if the lesson doesn't sink in, removed from society to protect those who could potentially become their next victims.

'Three Strikes' is a response to concern over flaws in the justice system that see criminals with a string of violent offences under their belts released on parole time and time again - only to abuse that freedom to harm and kill innocent, law-abiding New Zealanders.

'Three Strikes', however, has come under much criticism since ACT adopted it as a key policy prior to the last election. It has been described as heavy-handed and unjust, and many critics say it simply won't work.

Much of this criticism arises from a misunderstanding of how it would work. This lack of understanding has led to outrageous claims - among others that, under this law, we would see shoplifters sent to jail for 25 years to life for stealing a chocolate bar. This is not the case with ACT's policy.

Most distressing in this debate is critics' lack of recognition of victims and the suffering they and their families experience as a result of serious violent offending. For too long, victims have been ignored and the offender's rights have been given priority over punishment of crime - as well as over the rights of victims. 'Three Strikes' would work as follows:

An offender commits a violent crime - ie: rape - which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years. The judge would have discretion over the length of the sentence given - as is currently the case - and, having warned the offender that this was their first 'strike offence', would send them to prison. With parole, that offender could serve only a part of that sentence.

Should that person re-offend after being released and commit another violent offence, they may receive a harsher sentence - again at the judge's discretion. They would not be eligible for parole and the judge would inform the offender that this is the second 'strike offence'.

If - at the end of serving the second sentence - the lesson still hasn't sunk in, and the offender goes on to commit a third violent crime, they will go to prison for 25 years to life.

The fact is that New Zealanders in general are an understanding and fair-minded people. We want to give people a chance. And that's exactly what this policy does: it gives offenders a chance - an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and follow a different path.

While many critics may feel that two chances are not enough, there are a great many crime victims who feel that two chances are too many.

Whether vocal critics of 'Three Strikes' want to admit it or not, overseas evidence shows that three strikes legislation has resulted in a decrease in both violent and non-violent offending.

In New Zealand there are currently 77 murderers in prison right now who had three or more violent offences on their record at the time they committed their last crime. Under ACT's legislation, they would not have had a chance to kill their victims.

Under 'Three Strikes', William Bell would have been in prison rather than killing three people at the Panmure RSA while on parole with 102 convictions to his name. Nor would the late Antonie Dixon have been free to murder James Te Aute at a service station.

James Te Aute had absolutely no personal connection to Dixon whatsoever - he was, to use a phrase reported then, simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. In reality, it was Dixon who was at the wrong place at the wrong time. Had 'Three Strikes' been law, Dixon would have been in prison after his third strike - instead he was free to rack up 160 convictions.

The time to tinker with sentencing and parole is over. It is time now to make a difference, and to allow people to again feel safe in their homes and on their streets.

Despite the clamour from the critics, the fact is that 'Three Strikes' is fair. It gives offenders not one, but two chances to change their behaviour. But, should that fail and the offender choose not to grab this lifeline, then the Policy fulfils the core role of government: it keeps law-abiding citizens safe. And what could be fairer than that?

Lest We Forget - February 14 1915
During WWI, the British Empire's policy was that 'native peoples' should not be sent to fight in a war among Europeans - the fear at the time being that they might turn on their colonial masters, or cause embarrassment by expecting to be treated equally with European soldiers.

So when it was suggested that Maori be sent to garrison the newly captured German colony of Samoa, New Zealand Administrator Robert Logan warned the government that this could well provoke the Samoan population.

As casualties mounted and need for reinforcements grew, however, the official policy on the use of 'native peoples' changed. On February 14 1915, the Native Contingent of about 500 men left Wellington for Egypt aboard the SS Wairrimoo.

The Maori Contingent had a combat role at Gallipoli before being converted into a Pioneer Battalion to serve on the Western Front. By the end of the war, 2,227 Maori and 458 Pacific Islanders had served in the Maori Pioneer Battalion. Of those, 336 died on active service and 734 were wounded. Other Maori enlisted - with some dying - in other battalions as well.