As I understand it the 'added crimes' to the three strikes law will only qualify as a strike if the perpetrator is sentenced to prison for 5 or more years for that particular offence.
However, looking at the bill, the crimes added that qualify as a 'serious violent offence' might not constitute violence. Let's take one; sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years. A consensual affair between a 17 year-old step daughter and mother's partner? Does anybody really believe that constitutes serious violence?
There are others like 'kidnapping'. With the prolificity of custody battles today, kidnapping is more common. Again it doesn't necessarily involve violence.
So why were they added?
Mr Power said the list was designed to fulfil National's own parole policy, which would deny parole to those convicted of a violent offence punishable by five years or more if they had committed a similar offence before.
That doesn't answer the question.
Of course a judge can take circumstances into account and sentence the offender to less than 5 years thereby nullifying their qualification as strikes. Perhaps that is why ACT accepted their inclusion. If indeed Simon Power is telling the truth about that.
In related news, I note that earlier this month Hungary voted against three strikes legislation.
Parliament on Monday refused to put on its agenda the Fidesz "three strikes and you're out" motion aimed at tightening the penal code. MPs voted with 199 dissensions, 166 affirmative votes and three abstentions.
Three Strikes saw lower reoffending
43 minutes ago
3 comments:
I got the impression from Garrett at the AGM that he was opposeed to the added crimes National wanted included precisly because they weren't crimes of violence.
As you say...consentual sexual connection...as well as incest between adults,bestiality with your own animal etc are not crimes of violence (actually not crimes at all by Classical liberal definition).
But his advice in a speech to members about what they should say in their submissions is this;
"It may be sensible to suggest that there be two lists in the Bill – the current list for strikes one and two, and a shorter list of only the most serious offences for which the sentence can be 25 years to life."
So he is happy for non-violent offences to qualify as strikes.
A couple of points...firstly you need to understand that the words "may" and "should" are very different in law - and no I am not just being pedantic.
Note the quote you (Mitchell) have cited: "It may be sensible..." that is a very different thing from saying "submissions should include..."
I have been very careful not to tell people what they should say in submissions..I think it is all to the good that there is a very wide range of submissions. I have only ever suggested points which submitters might like to address.
Obviously I personally favour particular points, but I am only one person, and one point of view.
Secondly, it is clearly not viable (or politically saleable) for a possible third strike to be consensual sex with a family member (the type of scenario James suggests), or attempted sexual offences. If there is only the one list, and all strikes may be any offence from it, the bill will fail.
Having talked to many people, I think adding P manufacture and distribution (as opposed to consumption) should be a "strike" offence; while it is not a violent offence per se, it certainly leads to horrific violence. The libertarians on here may have a different view on whether it is appropriate to add that offence....
Obviously I would for the most part prefer going back to my original list. Note that all of my original strike offences are included in the Nats' list.
I would be comfortable for the act to provide for their list to apply for the first two strikes, but that an offender needed to commit an offence from a smaller number of "truly serious" offences to be eligible for 25 years to life. That is a reasonsably good fallback position in my view.
Post a Comment