Great line
In response to the suggestion by Chief Justice Elias that the Government reduce prison populations through a mass early release amnesty, Simon Power gave an excellent response:
Justice Minister Simon Power said inmates would not get amnesties.
He also made a pointed remark about the role of the judiciary versus Parliament.
“This is not government policy. The Government was elected to set sentencing policy, judges are appointed to apply it.”
Indeed that is how it works. And it is not as if any prisoners server their full sentences anyway. Almost everyone gets out at two thirds of their sentence, and some even get out at one third. They already have lots out on early release.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: law & order, Sian Elias
July 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Chief Justice Elias is a good mate of Helen Clark. Judging by the friends she keeps, she’s disqualified to comment.
Do-gooders like Elias will resort to similar crazy ideas to advance their liberal cause.
[DPF: Not sure who she is friends with, but she was appointed Chief Justice by Jenny Shipley. not Helen Clark]
July 16th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
OUCH !!!!!!!
July 16th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
It’s neither a ‘great’ line, nor is there anything ‘excellent’ about Power’s response – anyone could have told Elias that it’s not her place to implement such suggestions, nor has she suggested that it is her role – Power, like any other member of the National party, is obviously just trying to make the most out of an opportunity to grand stand.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
That’ll explain why she was suggesting the Government change policy, rather than suggesting that judges somehow implement such a notion themselves.
July 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
It’d be good if you quoted the parts of the article with substance instead of being a constant cheerleader for the National party David, ‘cos seriously, does anyone really give a damn about what Simon Power has to say? I am 100% certain that unlike Douglas he has absolutely no plan of action and like Goff mentioned in the interview you linked yesterday, will not act on any issue unless there is some public sentiment on it before he or John Key would be willing to jump on board for fear of alienating the general ignorant mum and dad voter.
Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said changes outlined in the speech were “totally in the wrong direction”. “If you start holding people accountable, you will get a reduction in crime. Until then I’m afraid we’ll just have to build more prisons.” He said he supported the concept of double bunking, and that he had seen tent prisons and container prisons work well overseas in places like Arizona in the US.
However, Howard League for Penal Reform president Peter Williams, QC backed Dame Sian’s ideas. Mr Williams said early release could be granted to prisoners who did not pose a risk to the public or prisoners who were nearing the end of their sentence. However, he said if it was the former, that could benefit white collar criminals and a public debate would be needed. “There’s absolutely no doubt that there are a large amount of people in our prisons who don’t need to be in prison,” Mr Williams said.
[DPF: You are wrong of course on every count. Simon Power has done a lot of work on both sentencing issues, but also cause of crimes issue. I am amazed you are not aware of this.
And teh reason I quoted that paragraph, is because I thought it was extremely appropriate that Simon remind the Chief Justice that at the end of the day the Government elected by the people determines sentencing policy. And National had many specific sentencing policies that have been or about to be implemented. General amnesty is not one of them]
July 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
That’s a disappointing response from Simon Power. I’d have thought he was one of the few MPs we had capable of avoiding the knee jerk but it seems election to government leeches one’s capacity for critical thinking.
Our jails are full of non-violent offenders who aren’t locked up to keep the public safe but purely as punishment for their crimes. Meanwhile many worthy community organisations are desperate for help, cycleways need to be built, and victims go under-compensated or not compensated at all.
Why not think outside the box? Why not have some criminals employed, allowed to retain the equivalent of the dole, and the rest of their wages going to their victims? No cost to society, and victims recompensed.
Why not have other criminals employed in daytime “work gangs” doing anything from preparing Meals on Wheels to cleaning out the SPCA’s cages? Or doing maintenance for elderly people? All supervised, of course.
Those who were thought to need a short, sharp shock could spend a month or two in prison as a warning of what life will be like oif they reoffend, then granted an amnesty if they agree to work to repay society and victims (and not just their victims – a portion could go into a pool for all victims, including those of violent offenders).
Bottom line – unless someone poses a physical danger to other members of society, unless they are a violent thug, then prison is the stupid answer. Not only does it do them no good, but most importantly it does society and the victims no good. It just costs taxpayers money to perpetuate a system that actually does very little to reduce recidivist violence even though those people serve their full term.
It’s a bit like the beneficiary argument. A small proportion (bludgers / violent offenders) need a much tougher approach. But as we toughen the rules that apply to everyone, we create a disproportionate amount of negative outcomes for those who don’t deserve it, and for society generally.
We seem to be reluctant to pick and choose… to say one person is more deserving of consideration than another. Instead some fine it easier to say “All beneficiaries / criminals are scum” while other say the same groups are merely “misguided and misunderstood”. Both are wrong.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:03 pm
Manolo (587) Vote: 2 2 Says:
July 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Chief Justice Elias is a good mate of Helen Clark. Judging by the friends she keeps, she’s disqualified to comment.
Do-gooders like Elias will resort to similar crazy ideas to advance their liberal cause.
Can we go one single Kiwiblog comments thread without the pretentious anti-Labour bullshit attitude everyone seems to have? Seriously, most of us all share the same right wing ideals, but whenever there’s some sort of issue you can’t go five posts without someone affiliating evil with Helen Clark, blaming socialism, or making crude yet absolutely crap jokes about the Left. Think before you post whether what you’re writing is actually of any value or wit to someone else who is reading it.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“does anyone really give a damn about what Simon Power has to say? ”
Yes, I do. Hes the Minister of Justice……On the other hand who gives a shit what soft cock apologists like Williams have to say. Whats the rate of recidivism again? Good luck to Williams finding those who post no risk. And I really dont understand why white collar criminals should be let out. They cause huge hardship and devastation when they rob/defraud people of all they have.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I second what Rex said, with the exception of the kneejerk bit. I am not surprised by that at all.
Ruby at 5.03pm: That is part of the fun of Kiwiblog. We don’t always have to be considered in our approach. Anyway, it is fun and proper to blame socialism for all of the worlds ills, and Labour had 9 years and did stuff all so I don’t see much problem with blaming them either!
July 16th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
@ FE Smith – amen to that! Kick the socialists (verbally, of course) while they’re down!
July 16th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Well spoken Simon POWER, it is time ELIAS and her idle subordinates in the Supreme Court got off their chuffs and started hearing some of the backlog of cases, which might put them in touch with the virtually uncontrolled violence that has evolved under their watch. In 2001 the figures for inmates inside for violence were,
* sixty-two percent of male sentenced inmates and 46 percent of female sentenced inmates were in prison for violent offences
* robbery, grievous assault and homicide were the most common types of violent offences committed
* thirty-six percent of male offenders and 11 percent of female offenders sentenced for a violent offence had been previously convicted of a violent offence.
……………………………………………………….And its been all downhill since then.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
Rex
“Our jails are full of non-violent offenders who aren’t locked up to keep the public safe but purely as punishment for their crimes.”
If you mean that thief’s, drug dealers, car converters, and the like should be set free because they pose no threat to the public then I cannot agree with you.
If some prick breaks into my house (avoids being mauled to death by the dogs) and steals everything of value then I want the low life locked up for as long as possible.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
Captain Crab asks:
Indeed they do, which is why they should be forced to repay society and/or their victims. Let me ask you a question. You’re defrauded by your financial advisor. What outcome would you like to see?
a. He’s sent to prison where he knows no one and is terrified. He’s double bunked in a single cell with a violent thug and is raped and beaten. He emerges either so traumatised he can’t work or, if he’s “lucky” he’s discovered a violent steak in himself and next time he robs you it’ll be with a knife. If you’re lucky you receive a pittance in victim compensation, but probably you get nothing.
b. He spends a few months in a medium-security facility (the violent thugs are all in the maximum security facility) and is then released and forced to work. If he can get a job in the private sector he is allowed to retain then minimum wage and everything above that goes into a pool to recompense victims of crime, including yourself. If he can’t find paid work he must work for a community organisation.
Second scenario. A guy breaks into your home, beats you, terrorises your family and robs you.
a. He’s sent to a prison where there’s plenty of “fresh meat” waiting to become his slaves and/or sex toys. Having done time before he knows all the tricks to make a stretch as comfortable as possible, including how to smuggle in drugs. Because no one dare complain about his brutality he gets no negative reports and eventually is sent to a lower security facility, where life is even easier. He emerges a hero to his thug mates, who set about planning how to rob and brutalise your neighbour.
b. Assessed as a high risk he’s sent to a prison which – because of enlightened sentencing and penal policies – is filled only with other thugs. Any violence on his part is met with violence in return, so he reluctantly stops using it. Because it doesn’t have to be “one size fits all” it is high security. Surveillance means he can’t get away with anything, and certainly very few drugs or other contraband enter the facility. If he wants to be moved to a better prison it’s not automatic, he must earn it. He is put to work in the prison and must – through hard work and an unbroken record of good behaviour – earn privileges such as a television. Failure to work, or to attend classes (and pass) results in loss of privileges and an extension of sentence.
At present we have option A. Truly “sensible” sentencing would see a move toward option B. Simon Power is clearly too cowed by the thought that Garrett, McVicar and the other hard liners in the debate would try to portray him as being soft on the second types of criminals in the example above, and he doesn’t have the balls to try to re-frame the debate.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
“He said he supported the concept of double bunking, and that he had seen tent prisons and container prisons work well overseas in places like Arizona in the US.”
Exactly. Housing more prisoners doesn’t have to be expensive. It’s prison, not a bloody hotel – they are meant to punish them.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
big bruv says:
I’d make a distinction there, BB. If they broke in while you and your family were inside – whether or not they actually attacked you – then that’s an aggravating factor. It indicates they would have been willing to assault you and your family and thus they are, or have the potential to be, a violent offender. In which case they should be treated as one (see above).
If they’re some stupid kids who went to the trouble to make sure you were out, and broke in only to take property, then hell yes I’d let them out after a few months seeing what the inside of prison was like. And I’d make them work at McDonalds or some other shitty job, and they’d hand most of their pay packet (aside from a minimum for their food and board, so it didn’t cost the taxpayer) over to a victims’ compensation fund, from which you’d have been able to claim a nice new set of furniture, thus avoiding a hike in your (and everyone else’s) insurance premiums.
A few years of getting up a 5.30 am to ask breakfast customers whether they’d like a hash brown with that, only to see the money they could have earned paying for their dishonesty, is going to be more of a deterrent than a few months inside. Plus you get your stuff back with no effect on your insurance and they don’t get beaten, raped, and taught how to be a real criminal.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Should prison rape as part of a good correctional sentence be a criminal offence in New Zealand? According to David Garrett, no.
Hopefully National actually thinks for themselves on this important issue rather than just listening to the so-called sensible sentencing trust!
July 16th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
DPF – re Manmolo’s posting.
Agreed Jenmny Shipley appointed Sian Elias as Chief Justice, but at that time the CJ was mainly the head of ench of the High Court. It was Helen Clark and co who effectively elevated her to the head of the Supreme Court. The President of the Court of Appeal would have been another contender.
I remember noises from the Labour Government about appointing SC judges who would tend to deliver social justice, but that did not happen. I strongly suspect that it was made very clear to Labour that the Court would have no credibility if such appointments were made over the heads of the senior Appeal judges.
I must admit to having some sympathy for Labour with respect to Appeal judges and employment law matters. They embraced the spirit of the Employment Contracts Act but then ‘white anted’ Margaret Wilson’s Employment Relations Act with respect to the ‘good faith’ provisions. Margaret had to amend the Act to give the judges the message loud and clear what the legislation meant.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
If you don’t commit crime, then you won’t go to prison. Simple. Why the hell is that concept so difficult to comprehend for some people? It’s all about personal responsibility.
The threshold to get locked up is high already (too high in my opinion), and those locked up deserve to be there. And there are plenty more who should be there too. And to say that only those who are a physical threat to others should be the only ones in jail is just utter nonsense.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Power is indeed correct. Lets not get side tracked by Elias. She was endeavoring to influence policy and was proposing that prisoners be given an amnesty to ease the pressure on jails. Power is completely correct in stating that policy is the Govt.’s job and trials and sentencing is hers. We can look and see how incompetent and completely out of control the court system is and who is responsible for that system. None other than Elias herself. How long before you get to court, something like 18 months currently.
My take is that Elias was using this to grandstand rather than put the torch to the operating and cost systems with the courts. Talk to any court employee and they will tell you how hopeless it actually is and Power of course would be like most of the rest of us completely familiar with this broken down process.
Its surprising that Elias didn’t suggest that the police stop arresting and charging so many people so she and her cronies can puddle along in their archaic way towards the next century.
Who would be surprised if the Govt. hadn’t put the hard word on Elias to perform in her capacity as Chief Judge and manage her responsibilities for the benefit of the users rather than the judges.
When in NZ have we had night courts for example. When have we seen courts operate early morning or late evening for the benefit of the people who have to use the system?
Why do members of a jury feel so battered at the end of a trial as per members of the Bain jury? What juror training or support has ever been instigated by the Chief Justice.
If she wants to be a judge and sit in court all well and good but she should hand back the role of being Court system manager. The system is well broke and needs revamping.
An example; until very recently mediators in the Tenancy Court (part of the system) hand wrote all judgments. Most of the time you couldn’t read them.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
For general information:
Much of this has also been discussed over on todays ‘General Debate’.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
“When in NZ have we had night courts for example. When have we seen courts operate early morning or late evening for the benefit of the people who have to use the system?”
Well, you will struggle to get the lawyers onside with that, for one. I won’t be appearing at any night court, that is certain. The judges are paid enough to do it. I’m not.
“Why do members of a jury feel so battered at the end of a trial as per members of the Bain jury? ”
Try being counsel at the end of a tough trial! We don’t get any offers of counselling and we see a lot more of the bad photos than the jury ever do.
I think Rex has made a lot of sense, especially where you are talking about property offences. That said, if you want to reduce a large amount of property offences then get a decent rehab service as well. Once you start considering what you want out of a criminal justice sentencing policy then you should arrive at better than simply imprisonment.
I understand what the CJ is saying in all of this: As a country as small as we are, why do we have the second or third highest rate of imprisonment in the western world? And just putting people in prison does not deter: up until the late 19th century the death penalty was applied for dozens (may actually be hundreds) of offences, but that didn’t seem to deter people. Children as young as 10 were executed, but crime continued to flourish.
Anyway, the crime rate has been reducing these last 10 years. That either means that the current high levels of imprisonment are the reason, or else we are imprisoning people unnecessarily.
And don’t suppose Power has a clue about the real problems in the system. I spent last night reading MoJ discussion papers that show the Ministry does not have a clue about what it means to be a part of the system. They read like they got some young analyst who has never practised to write the papers. If the MoJ wants to consult, let them come to the coal face and really see what happens in the system.
But I don’t believe that we should be locking up as many as we do.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Everyone wins out of this idea, except the government and the law abiding public!
The lawyers will have more crims to defend, next time around.
The Police and Justice system will need more funding.
The opposition parties, beacuse crime will go up.
And prisons wont be any less empty, there will be less double bunks… for the short term.
Maybe when you are sent to prison you lshould loose some rights.
Crush rocks or solitary. Smaller sentences. Much less re-offending!
July 16th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Rex, how dare you describe working in McDonalds as a shitty job!
Make the bastards clean the sewers of South Auckland or the Parliamentary Precinct, where shit really does stink.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
DPF said: [Simon Power] also made a pointed remark about the role of the judiciary versus Parliament.
“This is not government policy. The Government was elected to set sentencing policy, judges are appointed to apply it.”
I totally disagree DPF.
The Legislature (by legislation) and the Judiciary (though Common Law) are each constitutionally charged with making law. Thanks to MMP, the separation between the Executive and the Legislature is now more clear. I, for one, don’t want to go back to the days of Muldoon, where the Legislature and the Executive were essentially one and the same.
But the Executive (ie Cabinet), of which Simon Power is a member, is not responsible for making law.
Sure, he is entitled to publicly challenge the Chief Justice on the merits of her arguments. But effectively telling her to “butt out” of the discussion is not a good look constitutionally. She arguably has a greater constitutional right to comment on such issues than he does.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
FES, You’ve been reading that stuff? I had a go and then gave up. Your description of the author is covers almost every analyst in government service. Having said that I am going to try to wade my way through it and put together a submission to the MOJ. Why? I think based on what I have read that they, the MOJ, are barking mad.
I read the Chief Justice’s paper this afternoon. It is thought provoking and is achieving it’s, most likely, intended aim of provoking discussion.
Oh and something I picked up last week. In places like Mt Eden double bunking is the usual way things are done. The newer prisons, Ngawa, Springhill, Milton wer’nt designed without double bunking in mind so retro fitting double bunks is a major design problem.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Rex Widerstrom in his 5.44 post harps on about potential male rape in NZ prisons.
This is quite rare, though not unknown, in NZ prisons, according to Greg Newbold, who is an authority on NZ prisons, both as an academic and international consultant and and a former inmate, in Newbold’s recent history of NZ prisons.
Widerstrom may get his information from American TV cop shows where interrogators frequently threaten suspects with the horrors of prison rape. However, I suspect the miniscule Howard League for Penal Reform and other do-gooders greatly exaggerate the danger of prison rape in NZ as a propaganda tool to turn public opinion away from imprisonment as a tool against crime. Pj’s post at 6.10 tends to confirm this.
It’s interesting that the Howard league has jumped up in support of Sean Elias.
You can understand a lawyer like Peter Williams wanting softer, shorter punishment for his customers, but the motives of others in the soft-on-crime, prisons-aren’t-the-answer mob seem to be yet another manifestation of guilt for being born into the middle class.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Simon Power is a very different Minister of Justice. He is prepared to step on all sorts of toes. Most Ministers of Justice have been cautious about their comments on Judges and the profession generally. Not this Minister. He has of course has a very big work load in Commerce, Justice and a do nothing policy for State Owned Enterprises. I think his work load is too big to start up a fight with the Legal Profession and win. But that is where he is heading.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
The Chief Justice has not sought simply to influence Government policy. Rather, using the prestige of her office, she has offered coded encouragement to judges down the line to use their discretion to issue shorter criminal sentences.
In adopting such a public stance on a matter involving Government executive actions and related fiscal considerations, CJ Elias has acted well outside her strictly judicial mandate.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Jack5 said: However, I suspect the miniscule Howard League for Penal Reform and other do-gooders greatly exaggerate the danger of prison rape in NZ as a propaganda tool to turn public opinion away from imprisonment as a tool against crime.
ACT’s David Garrett thinks rectal rape is just part of the punishment:
July 16th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
FES, uncomfortable as it may be there are good reasons why the judiciary should meet the needs of the people rather than the needs of lawyers. Many people charged are working people and many witnesses are working people who must forgo their day and their income to meet the needs of your system.
Be honest the system is a disgrace from go to wo as you know so it needs radical thinking to be successful.
At least you get paid a reasonable amount for being there but witnesses, jurors etc are treated with great disdain and basically are considered cannon fodder by most of the other participants.
There is no immutable law of anything that says lawyers and their ilk must only work 10 till 4. Most Dr’s can’t nor can most of the rest of the population. ( I’m being facetious of course but you get my point no doubt).
That we have such a high prison population has always been a disgrace. I have asked lots of Maori people why they have so many incarcerated and have yet to have someone explain it to me. My view has been for a long time that we in our society are doing something wrong for it to be like this. I don’t necessarily think that its the courts fault, I believe it starts way before then.
One has to say that its a lack of a core value system that establish’s in a persons mind the kind of values that are suitable for our society. Why is that sense of core value missing?
Well its called politics I suspect. Politics of the worst kind known as socialism. As kiwi’s we have a sense of pride in our sports teams but no inherent sense of pride in our selves, our wealth, our industry nor our nation. Indeed we don’t even agree on our own flag let alone fly it anywhere. We remain with the Britannic rag that holds little meaning for most.
Add to that the mindless pursuit of social largess that successive Govt’s of all persuasions have foisted upon us by robbing the taxpayer to fund the non earner and we have the seeds of community lack of esteem. We have a divisive treaty industry which allows one group to blame the other for all that ails it.
We have had years of leadership by dishonest people both in politics and in business and in law as an example of the way we should behave. I note that at last our current PM is disinclined to accept that behavoir from his colleagues. So a good start.
I suspect that Peter Sharples is on the right track for his efforts are about developing self worth in particularly young Maori & PI men. Men who often have been dragged up and left to fend for them selves with the assistance of welfare. Never going to lead to good outcomes only to jail.
So MHO its is back to the beginning to improve the ending.
And that’s where all this begins.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
calendar girl said: CJ Elias has acted well outside her strictly judicial mandate.
Completely wrong CG. One of the constitutional roles of the judiciary is to protect society from the excesses of authoritarian executive government, as I have explained in more detail in my post here.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Rex
“If they’re some stupid kids who went to the trouble to make sure you were out, and broke in only to take property, then hell yes I’d let them out after a few months seeing what the inside of prison was like. And I’d make them work at McDonald’s or some other shitty job”
I can see where you are coming from with this Rex but IMHO there is one glaring problem, the little bastards would simply not turn up for work most days, either that or some pinko wanker like Toad or Bradford would be screaming that it is forced Labour, once again the system would work for the criminal rather than the victim.
There would be an army of commies telling the criminal that he has rights, and that we as members of the public (and his victims) should be concerned about his rights, hell, the odds are Rex that the previously mentioned Bradford or Toad would be more than willing to say that the only reason he committed the crimes was because of colonisation.
As far as I can see the criminal should be locked up for as long as possible or I should have the option to shoot the wanker right between the eyes (or I can feed him to my dogs) for breaking into my house, either way the softy softy approach is just another slap in the face to victims, sooner or later the victims are going to fight back, the system and the left cannot keep telling us that we have to be more concerned about their rights than we should be about our own.
I know it is simplistic but the answer is simple, if you do not want to go to prison then don’t commit the fucking crime in the first place, I am all for spending millions on crime prevention, I am all for spending millions targeting high risk kids, and again, lets be honest here, the local cops can tell you right now who the next generation of crims are going to be, all we have to do is give the cops the budget and forget all the PC crap.
The one area where you and I will always differ is in how we deal with those who break the law, I want to spend the money BEFORE they become crims, they should be taught that there is a line that one does not cross and that if you do cross that line then you are going to feel the full weight of the law and you will be locked up for a very very long time.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
Regarding Toad’s 9.25 post about David Garrett…
Garrett must be an embarrassment to ACT. The party must have a dim-witted candidate selection panel to rank him highly enough to be selected for Parliament after ACT earlier let the proven top-rate politician Stephen Franks slip away to National.
Gerry Eckhoff, a high-country farmer with appeal to rural voters after leading the successful campaign against the Fart Tax, would have been a better MP than Garrett, too.
Newbold’s the independent authority on NZ prisons. Not Garrett or the Howard Leaguers.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
big bruv said: … some pinko wanker like Toad or Bradford would be screaming that it is forced Labour, once again the system would work for the criminal rather than the victim.
Hey, wrong supposition, bruv. I have no problem with non-violent prisoners convicted of property crime who do not pose a threat to society being released early. But they should be found (even low-paid) jobs and required to work at them until their sentence is complete, and much as I despise McD’s for many reasons, would even accept them working there.
Hey, and I want to spend he money before they become crims too. Shit, we’re sharing more tonight than ever before bruv. Although we’ve always agreed on animal welfare.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
> I thought it was extremely appropriate that Simon remind the Chief Justice that at the end of the day the Government elected by the people determines sentencing policy.
David, are you suggesting that Dame Sian isn’t aware that the govt is elected by the people…? That’s seems to be what you and Simon are suggesting, and frankly it’s insulting. Someone of Sian’s intelligence might actually have some useful things to say about the penal system. In other words, instead of you and Simon getting uptight, you both might do well to listen to what she has to say. Simon doesn’t have to agree with her of course, but he at least should show her some courtesy. He may as well have told her to get back in the kitchen!
[DPF: Well Simon could do a public speech on how the Chief Justice should be doing her job]
July 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
> CJ Elias has acted well outside her strictly judicial mandate.
I think you’ll find if you study the Bill of Rights Act that freedom of expression is still there. So, no, the Chief Justice is not required to lie back and think of England.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Toad
“Hey, and I want to spend he money before they become crims too”
Bullshit!,l you would want to waste money, you would not be able to deal with the FACT that we know where this money has to be spent, we know who the families are and we know that 90% of these people are more than likely going to come from one or two racial groups.
The Greens sickening level of PC would just not allow us to target these groups as you would see it as racial profiling.
And anyway, your idea of spending money on these people would be to give them more dole or DPB money when that is not going to stop crime at all.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Ah, bruv. I thought you bought into Brash’s “one law for all” stinking ideology. Now you seem to be coming from where the Greens are coming from. Target the money to those most at risk, so as to minimise the risk of children growing up to be criminal offenders.
I love it when I agree with you bruv. And it’s not more dole or DPB for particular groups that I would support. It is identifying those at risk, and putting in place support from early childhood through to late teens to try to ensure they have an option other than the jobless and criminal path their parents have likely been down.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
I liked the idea I heard that we subcontract our maximum security prisoners out to China, Thailand, Singapore or similar. Anyone sentenced to say 5 years or more? I would bet they would do it for $10k per prisoner easily, saving us $90k per prisoner per year. We could even put most of the savings back into trying to sort out the minor crims and juvies before they go bad. With a consequence like that hanging out there I wonder what might happen to the crime stats??? It will never happen but I like the concept!!
July 16th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
To cut the prison population, we could just cull the worst offenders we have. And retrospective legislation to bring in capital punishment for certain offences – there is bound to be a thousand or so that don’t deserve to live.
Not very nice, but a practical solution don’t you think?
July 16th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Viking,
a lot of sense there, especially the latter part. For the most part I agree with what Peter Sharples is trying to do. I see to many young men who have come out of dysfunctional families to disagree with any initiative that would try to address the rate of offending in young men, whatever the ethnicity. At the risk of being unpopular, alcohol plays a massive part in much of the offending I deal with. That discussion is not really for this thread, because the CJ’s point is more about post conviction matters rather than prevention.
It was pointed out to me earlier this evening that this is really a message to the District Court Judges that they are imprisoning to many people and not making the use of Home and Community Detention that the Appellate Courts want them to. There have been some pretty blunt messages coming down from the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court about that but it doesn’t seem to be taking hold at the coal face.
“At least you get paid a reasonable amount for being there but witnesses, jurors etc are treated with great disdain and basically are considered cannon fodder by most of the other participants.”
I couldn’t agree with you more on that one. The amount we pay jurors is appalling and should be raised immediately. But I would go further and allow excusal only for extreme hardship. I wouldn’t even mind if you got rid of challenges. At least we should be paying them more for the very important job that jurors do.
Witnesses costs are also low, but I imagine that the Police would balk if the costs were higher because they would be liable to pay them. The reality is that most of the people I represent have no money or assets whatsoever, so adding costs onto the convicted would be futile. Plus there are sufficient people acquitted in summary jurisdiction to make an increase in witness fees unpopular with the government. Just like they recently refused to increase jurors fees significantly.
And I am not saying that you shouldn’t have the judges sitting in night court, just don’t expect me to turn up! My colleagues and I work a lot harder than normal office hours, with the job often being 7 days a week, just like many other jobs. If you look at our diaries you will see they are usually booked up for 4 to 6 months in advance.
Alex, it really does read like that, doesn’t it! I go so annoyed that I fired off copies to some colleagues and they had similar uncomplimentary comments as well. I will plagiarise one from tonight where my colleague said that the discussion papers read like a 3rd year law paper where the marker would say something like “really well researched but you don’t seem to know how to apply it”. The assertions in the discussion documents were so far off base that they were obviously written by someone who has not been at the defence bar. I hate it when they MoJ thinks that consultation means asking the judges and the Crown, and maybe a few favoured Wellington barristers.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
big bruv:
Then they go back to prison.
Toad’s taking quite a reasonable line on this and if Bradford made such a statement (and I wouldn’t put it past her), we should care why?
Jack5 says:
I wish I could see things in nice bright primary colours like you Jack5, but they’re more nuanced than that. I’ve been inside prisons in NZ and Australia, as an inmate and a visitor. Have you?
But aside from my anecdotal observations, in terms of reporting prison rape is like any rape – as lot goes unreported. A man raped by another man is going to suffer shame, PTSD and a myriad of other reactions which preclude against reporting. Add to that that he’s in an environment where being a “dog” is likely to result in serious assault or maybe death and you’ve got a further disincentive.
Academics with whom I work are currently completing research into prison rape. When it’s finished I’ll be able to discuss this with some statistics to back me up.
July 17th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Quite simple really…if you dont wana do the time dont do the crime. You break the law you go to jail. And you stay there until you have done the sentence.
“However, Howard League for Penal Reform president Peter Williams”…
who really gives a flying fuck what this clown says anyway..the great apologist for criminal behaviour…another candidate for Rymans.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:09 am
FES, perhaps to much “law” is being used by all sides. Maybe we should act quicker, use less aer amounts of law and stop the kind of prevaricating that we see currently with the Weatherston case. Clearly guilty, admitted that guilt, been witnessed doing the crime but now is aided and abetted by QC’s and barristers in an attempt to minimize the damage to himself.
Potter should have cut this off way back at his admission of guilt and simply said thankyou, off to jail you go for ever and ever Amen. But no the legals are complicent in this spending game.
Interesting watching part of the TV program the investigator the other night. Potter tried the same girl twice for the same crime despite the young lady being allowed free by an appeal. Doesn’t say much for the integrity of that judge I’m afraid.
I suspect that along with alcohol a lot of your work involve marijuana. While not supporting the use of this I see little merit in continuing with our head in the sandbox attitude that most of the world seems to have over this drug. If we decriminalized small amounts for personal use etc and upped the drinking age and reduced the alcohol availability then I suspect that your job would be much nicer and we would have one whole lot less people in jail.
But Kiwi’s are suckers for beating others up so like our tax policy Govt’s. just ain’t going to do the sensible thing.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:10 am
[DPF: Well Simon could do a public speech on how the Chief Justice should be doing her job]
Well, he could but then he would need evidence to show that she was not doing her job. Far easier for him to just remind her to keep her mouth shut. For some reason, I don’t think that is going to go down well in judicial circles.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:23 am
Simple Solution. And I am amazed no one has suggested it before. As we buy everything else from China, why do we not buy their prisons, labour, food
Solution – Export our prisoners to China.
It must be cheaper to keep them locked up in China than in New Zealand. We just enter into a contract with the Chinese to house, feed, and supervise out prisoners. They must be able to do it cheaper than in NZ
July 17th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Chief Justice Elias does seem to think she sets policy, perhaps a Margaret Wilson legacy, n’est-ce pas?
July 17th, 2009 at 7:41 am
Minister Power sounds like a petulent child to me …either that or a smart arse with little brain. We need people with knowledge of the system like the Chief Justice to express their opinions … far more val;uable than a damm fool politician grovelling to ignorant public opinion
July 17th, 2009 at 7:41 am
the prison rape/beating issue has little to do with community sentencing. If it really is such a concern then it’s a problem for prison management, not judges. Clean up the prisons, don’t change the system. Everytime a clean up prisons is proposed a thousand and one reasons for why it can’t be done are published in the media with an air of helplessness. It has all the hallmarks of internal corruption. I don’t expect this to change soon and certainly not under either National or labour – both camps have demonstrated for decades they have neither the influence or the fortitiude. But the solution remains with the prisons, not judges freeing criminals into the community.
And further to FE Smith’s comments briefly above, if you want to greatly reduce the chances of being involved in crime – especially those weird crime stories that frequent the front pages of daily papers – stay away from alcohol, licensed premises such as bars and clubs, and people that drink enough of it to have their mood changed. It’s that simple, and as F E Smith says, that unpopular. But it’s true.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Anyone wanting to read the speech by CJ Elias can access it here, just scroll to the bottom of the page. I wonder if the Justice Minister has read it. Probably not.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2601308/Call-for-chief-justice-to-resign
Elias makes a number of very valid points. She reminds people that the Sentencing Act requires courts to keep offenders in the community “as far as that is practicable and consonant with the safety of the community”. So it seems the Chief Justice is actually saying to the government, we ought to be trying harder to keep offenders in the community. That is consistent with current law, so it’s clear that Elias is doing her job. Indeed, it could be argued that if Simon Power does not want offenders kept in the community, he might wish to amend the Sentencing Act. Far better that he does that than criticise a speech he probably hasn’t read.
Another of Elias’ points is that if you go to prison, you’ve got a greater chance of re-offending than if you’re given a non-custodial sentence. Do we want offenders to re-offend? I wouldn’t have thought so.
But also reflect on this comment of hers:
“In the last 10 years especially, there has been a change to greater prescription by Parliament. That is entirely legitimate. Parliament through legislation sets down the framework.”
But isn’t that what Simon Power said when he criticised Elias? Clearly, Elias knows that Parliament makes laws and policies because she says that such a role is “entirely legitimate”. It makes you wonder just what Power was thinking – or if he was thinking – when he criticised the Chief Justice.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:17 am
Toad
I am so glad that we agree on something other than animal rights.
It is refreshing that you support the state intervening in dysfunctional families, it is fantastic that you believe that the state should be able to go into the homes of the Kahui’s, Whittakers, Whakaruru’s and remove the children permanently.
I am also heartened that you support the idea of forced sterilisation so the parents of these poor kids do not have the chance to breed any more victims.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Firstly it was not a great line, it was yet another National politician shooting from the hip & being populist, not unlike the attack on bank interest rates, it also reduced the credibility of our highest court, such a message should be delivered in private not public !!!.
I agree with a number of Rex’s ideas, but the idea of reduced sentences for white collar criminal really annoys the hell out of me, if anything I’d increase them, certainly whilst the concept of a minimum wage with the rest to justice is noble, it’s about as practical as thinking Labour can manage an economy for more than 3 years in power, personally I’d rather take a hiding than have someone take my life’s savings & I think criminals who indulge in such behaviour deserve sentences equivalent to manslaughter to reflect the heartache they cause, not to mention they have the intelligence/belligerence to avoid a punitive financial consequence like Rex suggested.
The only single logical reason for really long sentences I have ever heard was the ability to breakup organised crime, as I understand it the NY mafia sang like choir girls when faced with 40-50 years inside. But surely to overload our ( and US ) prisons when the only valid reason is to break up organised crime is taking the easy way out with regards fighting that crime & having a massive social impact.
Last thought, prisons should be renamed criminal educational & recruitment facilities, because they are very effective at that & until the recidivism rates come down keeping a higher proportion of offenders in jail is really just doing an injustice to society & the criminals we are trying to stop reoffending.
P.S. What was Power thinking, my guess is I am a Minister now & how dare someone come up with a more reasoned intelligent/logical arguement than MY department, that person must be put down before any such behaviour continues & I must prove I am boss, no consideration to how much of a chest puffing fool I’ll look.
July 17th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Power should read the speech by the Chief Justice and the Herald editorial before reacting as he did. I see trouble all over him when it comes to the sleepy justice portfolio.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Hahahaha Not quite the comments thread David Farrar’s – or Simon Power’s – dogwhistling expected then.
Probably a good sign.
So the question is this: How have we come to a state of affairs where every expert involved in criminal justice from the lofty heights of the Chief Justice to lowly Prison Guards, from University Academics to thoughtful Police Officers say the current more and more punitive system isn’t working, costs a fortune and worse seems to contribute crime more than it prevents, and where politicians of all parties in private admit these experts are right, yet everyone is to afraid to do anything about it?
How can it be that what we KNOW to be true is impossible to implement because we too afraid of demagogues and rabble rousers? It is an abject moral, intellectual and political failure of the highest order.
Who makes policy in this country, the wannabe Rush Limbaugh’s of talkback land and the ill-informed lunatics of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, or our elected representatives as guided by the best experts in the field of criminal justice?
July 17th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Great to see all you ‘chardonnay socialists’ line up in suppoort of Elias.
Bleeding hearts the lot of you.
But in the workplace; on the sports field and over a beer the great unwashed shake their heads in wonderment of a member of the judiciary so far out of wack with public opinion.
But of course in ‘her’ lexicon she is only doing her duty in telling us how we should think.
Some might dare to think that it a tad arrogant.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Viking,
the thing about Ablett-Kerr and King is that they are obliged to do their best under the Rules of Conduct and Client Care. We defence lawyers are obliged to do our best for the client according to our instructions. But your point re Potter stopping the trial raises a real point: The Crown often chooses to proceed with more serious charges despite having a guilty plea offered. In this case Weatherston has already pleaded to manslaughter and the Crown could have accepted that but they chose to proceed with the trial to try for a murder conviction. I was in a similar case a couple of years ago and we actually won the manslaughter conviction that we offered. The trial became a waste of time but nobody criticised the Crown for being bloody minded about the matter. Don’t forget that in this case the Crown is also in close consultation with the Police.
Good point re dope. In fact, the use of drugs is the other common factor in my clients. I almost jumped in with my experiences on another thread on Kiwiblog that got to talking about drug use, but decided not to. I find there are the two types of drug users that I deal with: the hard out junkies who are responsible for a lot of the property crime in our country, and the dope users who just can’t find it in themselves to turn up to court, or community work, or whatever, and end up going to prison because they just don’t comply with the rules out of sheer drug-induced apathy. Either way, I don’t think that currently illicit drugs should be legalised at all. But that is for another topic.
For your information, below is the primary rule for defence lawyers out of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care (stupid name, but that is what Law Society wanted to call them..). Anyway, note the use of the word ‘must’:
A defence lawyer must protect his or her client so far as is possible from being convicted (except upon admissible evidence sufficient to support a conviction for the offence with which the client is charged) and in doing so must— (a) put the prosecution to proof in obtaining a conviction regardless of any personal belief or opinion of the lawyer as to his or her client’s guilt or innocence; and (b) put before the court any proper defence in accordance with his or her client’s instructions— but must not mislead the court in any way.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:59 am
the guts is we lock too many people away
we do this because too many people commit cirmes.
the reason is for the last 40 years NZ has lacked good governance.
We have had a succession of weak politicans civil servants judicary and police all undermining the good work of good parents trying to raise their children to be good citizens
We have an endless stream of so called liberals like CJ Elias Clark Cullen et al all of them sabotaging good parenting and good family values morals and ethics.
So why are some of us not surprised we are where we are.
Im not. The writings been on the wall for me since I was a young adult 35 years ago
We have a pandering to the lowest common denominator a lack of guts from our leaders to stand up for what is right moral and ethical
the soft cocks like Elias etc are the cause of the problem
Until they are removed and replaced with ethical moral and decent human beings the problems will continue
July 17th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
@Ross Miller
“But of course in ‘her’ lexicon she is only doing her duty in telling us how we should think. Some might dare to think that it a tad arrogant.”
Yeah, what would the Chief Justice of the High Court of New Zealand know? Why should we defer to her opinons, informed as they have been by years of learning and experience?
I much prefer the uneducated opinion of the truck driver who I talked at my kids soccer match last week. He knew a thing or two about criminal justice.
July 17th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Dean Knight raises an interesting point over at his blog: http://www.laws179.co.nz/2009/07/judges-and-penal-policy.html
“If the Minister of Justice and government think that judges’ singular role is to apply the law enacted by Parliament and they should not contribute to the debate on appropriate penal policy and the criminal justice system, why then did the government invite 6 judges (Judge Becroft, Judge Bidois, Judge Carruthers, Judge Clark, Judge Johnson, Judge Rota) to participate in the government’s “Drivers of Crime” ministerial summit?”
July 17th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
Power’s observation about the constitutional separation was accurate but it was not “an excellent response.” It has all the hallmarks of a complacent, self assured politician who has been in power just long enough to start believing in his own infallibility and who now thinks he can get away with putting people down.
The Chief Justice may have pushed the boundaries of propriety slightly by expressing a view, but it was a fair and considered set of observations. She deserves a lot more respect from a newbie Minister who has yet to make a name for himself.
Whether or not Elias crossed a boundary, she is still the Chief Justice. Elias 9, Power 1.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Stephen Franks was superb on Labour Radio’s Morning show today on this topic. He took on BOTH civil rights spokesman Michael Bott, a rude fellow who at one stage told Franks to shut up, and host Kathryn Ryan, who sided solidly with Bott rather than attempting to be a neutral moderator/chairlady. Bott’s indignation about accommodation built from shipping containers is surprising given their praise by all who have looked at the prototypes.
You can hear the discussion at the following link. The only problem is Franks won’t be able to hear you cheering.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0003/2007651/ntn-20090717-0908-Chief_Justice_Dame_Sian_Elias_suggests_early_release_amnesty-m048.asx
July 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
So : “defence lawyers must support his or her client ……but must not mislead the court in any way”. Yeah right.
What about defence lawyers confusing the hell out of an ignorant jury with science or loopy/extraneous “evidence” guaranteed to make the pious brickheaded foreman convinced that the murdered person shot himself and buried his own body in the swamp. etc … To me. this is a filthy job, but I suppose that someone has to do it. I couldn’t.
In fact, watching the stuff in progress makes me desperately cynical.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Makes me cynical too, Mara. But there is a common perception that defence lawyers lie and cheat to achieve their clients acquittal. That is totally incorrect and I believe comes directly from inaccurate and fatuous American television legal dramas. Believing Boston Legal, CSI, Criminal Intent and the ilk, although perhaps entertaining, would be like believing that we can take take a 747 ride to the moon.
Let’s have a look at what you say:
“What about defence lawyers confusing the hell out of an ignorant jury with science or loopy/extraneous “evidence””
Any expert evidence must be given by a witness that the Court accepts, based on the legislated criteria, is an expert in the field they are giving evidence about. They must be impartial, as well. There is no such thing as a ‘defence’ expert or a ‘crown’ expert, like we might see in crime dramas. They are simply experts and might be giving evidence for the defence in one trial and the crown in the next.
To be admissible all evidence must be relevant to the case. There is no chance for any ‘extraneous’ evidence being admitted unless the judge thinks it is in fact relevant to the case. For the most part, most ‘extraneous’ evidence is presented by the Crown and usually opposed by the defence. I don’t know what ‘loopy’ evidence is so I won’t address that.
Anyway, Prosecutors are just as willing to confuse the hell out of an ‘ignorant’ jury. They just get applauded when they do so.
“guaranteed to make the pious brickheaded foreman convinced that the murdered person shot himself and buried his own body in the swamp’
The foreperson (the newly legislated term) is one of 12, of whom 11 must now agree for a verdict. Other than acting as a chairperson for the discussion, they have no other extra legal weight.
“To me. this is a filthy job, but I suppose that someone has to do it. ”
Yes, it is a difficult and much condemned occupation. But is also hugely enjoyable and rewarding in its own way, if not as financially rewarding as we might like. It is also an important occupation, because without it the people have no protection from the coercive power of the state. Just imagine for a moment if you were wrongly accused of a crime, locked up in custody pending trial and you didn’t have a defence lawyer? What would you do? Appeal to the better nature of the police, who charged you and will do what takes to keep you in prison? I assure you, it is very difficult to organise your own defence while you are in custody.
But while you are imagining that, just pretend that you don’t have a lawyer, because defence lawyers no longer exist due to society’s condemnation of them and the understandable unwillingness of the legal profession to continue doing such an unpopular job. The Crown has lawyers, though, because prosecutors of course are always praised and respected. So you have to defend yourself against the full might and unlimited resources of the state all by yourself. But in Court the Judge expects you to know the proper rules and procedures, even though you have never been there before, because ignorance of the law is no excuse…
Might it be then that you started wishing you had a defence lawyer to assist you?
Actually, here is a question: during the Nazi era trials during the 1930s and 1940s, where the judges and the prosecutors were all Nazi party members and were willing to do anything to meet the Party’s expectation as to outcome, were the defence lawyers then also doing a filthy job? Seeing as how many of their clients were actually innocent yet were facing the death penalty?
Or what about David Dougherty’s defence lawyer? After all, he was completely innocent and the police and the prosecution had it completely wrong. Was Dougherty’s defence lawyer also doing a filthy job?
Go read the book Actual Innocence, about the Innocence Project in the States and you will see why defence lawyers are actually vital to a democratic society.
What you see in the news is merely a snapshot, and a murky one at best.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
F E Smith. Don’t wish to be rude, but please don’t be patronising. I already know why defence lawyers are vital to a democratic society. I just think the system could be much improved. And so do you, if you are honest.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Hmm, I obviously missed the ironic support for the profession when you suggested the system be fixed by saying “”must not mislead the court in any way”. Yeah right.” and “What about defence lawyers confusing the hell out of an ignorant jury” and “To me. this is a filthy job”.
My mistake…
July 18th, 2009 at 2:13 am
Toad
“Now you seem to be coming from where the Greens are coming from. Target the money to those most at risk, so as to minimise the risk of children growing up to be criminal offenders.”
Now of course the devil is in the detail, which on closer examination turns out to be the socialist extremist Greens’ agenda of destabilising the traditional family model that has served us so well in the past and reinventing hippyism and every other itch scratcher you can think of (and a good many more you can’t). Think Sue Bradford’s shrill proclamations that the United Nation’s Rights of the Child conventions have precedence over generationally developed parental wisdom and and you are halfway there.
John Tamihere says “we know who these people are in the maternity ward” so why are we consistently advocating ambulance at the bottom of the cliff approaches, everyone knows the predictors of dysfunction and crime are consistently linked with the breakdown of families in society.
July 19th, 2009 at 10:23 am
David,
I’m surprised you’re not quoting from today’s Herald on Sunday editorial:
“Dame Sian, who had a distinguished legal career behind her before Simon Power left primary school, has every right to express her thoughts on the matter. And we have every right to expect that our lawmakers read and closely consider what she has to say rather than rule her evidence inadmissible.”
I couldn’t have put it better myself. Power has come out of this looking like a clown. Someone should remind him that he has two ears and one mouth: that’s because listening is more important than talking.