The Press on the Chief Justice
The Press editorial is hard hitting:
The flouting of convention that the Chief Justice’s address on penal policy represents is such that it is very hard to see any other explanation for it except that it was a preparation for resignation from the Bench. Even then, her observations were something that would have been more properly delivered after she had left rather than before.
The Chief Justice has effectively declared herself in opposition to the policies endorsed by voters at the last election. Any decisions she makes in future will be tainted with the fact she has entered the realm of partisan politics, and the respect for her decisions will be greatly lessened.
Once appointed, judges hold their positions until they reach retirement age. It is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to sack them and they are answerable to no-one. These provisions are designed to ensure that their judgments are given without fear or favour, and in particular that they are free from political interference.
The other side of this arrangement is that judges loyally apply the laws passed by Parliament and refrain from inserting themselves into political debate. These conventions are now hundreds of years old and have stood the test of time better than any of the alternatives tried in other jurisdictions.
Departure from them risks compromising the integrity of the justice system. The Chief Justice’s address crossed the line between what is proper under this convention and what is not.
And the Chief Justice said herself, she knew her speech would provoke a reaction.
The Chief Justice speaks with the authority of her high judicial office, although it should be remembered that that does not give her any particular expertise in penal policy. It would also be interesting to know what her attitude would be if any judge whose views differed from hers were to make his or her opinions publicly known.
Indeed. Is it open slather for Judges now? Can other Judges give speeches demanding Parliament impose longer prison terms?
Unlike judges, politicians are answerable every three years for their opinions and actions on political topics. Like anyone else, judges are free to enter into these political debates if they wish to do so. But if they do wish to do so they must be answerable for the policies they advocate. They cannot do so from the privileged position they occupy on the Bench.
The real danger is that Elias may use her position as head of the judiciary to impose her personal views that sentences should be much shorter, regardless of what Parliament says. We have already seen the Court of Appeal consistently knocking a few years off non parole periods in a couple of cases.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:37 am
Remember that Sian Elias is NOT a real New Zealander. She is ENGLISH and is entitled to a EU Passport. (Unlike us REAL New Zealanders!!!)
July 20th, 2009 at 7:11 am
It’s worth also looking at the what the Herald said:
“Faced with a prison system half of whose graduates will reoffend within five years (and the recidivism rate is higher among those who serve long terms); and with the Government moving to double-bunking and locking prisoners up in converted shipping containers; we would be less than sensible if we did not consider alternatives to simply imposing harsher sentences. 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.”
July 20th, 2009 at 7:48 am
About time, she was never anything more than a two-bit Treaty lawyer who had the gall to try claiming everything from radio spectrums to moss on rocks. The collective shudder that went through the legal profession when she was appointed spoke volumes. She’s a joke. Always has been. Leave now, please.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:50 am
No. The real danger is that people will view Dame Sian’s decisions through this light, and the perception of bias in her decisions will harm the judiciary and respect for the rule of law.
You don’t seriously consider that next-time the Chief Justice is sitting in for the Governor-General as the Administrator of the Government that she’ll start issuing commutations?
July 20th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Cerium … it is as if the editorial which focuses on Elias’s flouting of constitutional convention has gone right over your head.
So she breaks with that to make her point. What’s next in her bag of tricks? Perhaps next time the GG is away and she becomes the ‘Officer Administering the Government’ she will decline to sign-off on something she disagrees with.
She has put herself in an impossible position and in doing so has denigrated her office. She should have resigned yesterday.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Cerlum, it doesn’t matter how long and distinguished Elias’ career is. She has never won a vote in her life. She isn’t endorsed or mandated to represent government opinion.
Simon Power, on the other hand, has a strong mandate to represent government opinion, being a senior member of the cabinet.
Elias would have done better to quietly chat with the Minister to share her thoughts rather than go public.
July 20th, 2009 at 7:54 am
I think the Press (and Power) have got the right of it.. Elias has politicized the judiciary.
To some degree this doesn’t matter if the topic is one where, say, there’s broad agreement that “the law is an ass”, but to pick a topic that shuts off political options is bad.
Crime costs us $9.1 billion per year (2003/04 Treasury, Roper), so in fact we have a lot of money to spend on solutions that make a significant dent in that bill.. including simply building twice as many prisons. More important, about half the prisoners suffer mental illness and drug related problems.. and a logical spend would be to build detention facilities that actually address those problems. It is silly to imprison and then release someone who remains ill or addicted and who doesn’t go out with a life plan to follow (that can be audited and adjusted).
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 8:08 am
Does anybody remember her prior controversies like saying Parliamentary Supremacy was an untested idea and speaking candidly on judicial matters to a British Select Committee that she wouldn’t even tell the government about?
July 20th, 2009 at 8:14 am
All thoughs who demanded that Christine Rankin be fired will no doubt be calling for this woman to go too…
July 20th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Not to mention that her supposedly “distinguished legal career” consisted largely of charging round town with Donna Hall and threatening people that if they didn’t cave to their tenuous and frankly absurd assertions over Maori ownership of practically everything they would ruin them through the media. She’s the same dangerous hack today as she was then.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:22 am
All I did was point out an alternate editorial view.
Does Elias has any right to freedom of speech? Rankin does, it’s just not appropriate for her to campaign against the policies of the commission she is a member of. Elias is not campaigning, she has raised points (that she has also raised in the past) that deserve some consideration. She hasn’t stated what she thinks should happen, she has highlighted an important issue.
“Elias would have done better to quietly chat with the Minister to share her thoughts rather than go public.”
Possibly. Maybe she has. It wouldn’t have provoked as much thought as this approach. It is something that deserves some serious thoughts, not knee jerk reaction.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:24 am
Lets be honest the lefto systerhood are f*cked off their overlord Hulun has left and their protected positions are now not so protected.
Margaret Wilson and Sian Elias both mouthing off in the same few weeks. The answers simple ladies, if you don’t like it f*ck off.
Really.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“We have already seen the Court of Appeal consistently knocking a few years off non parole periods in a couple of cases.”
“Nigel Hampton QC put his finger on it when he said: “At a human level I wonder why. As a lawyer, I understand.”"
– http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/editorial/65871/strange-justice
July 20th, 2009 at 9:03 am
have a listen to this
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ideas/2009/05/ideas
ff to 18:00
July 20th, 2009 at 9:05 am
David,
You are talking nonsense on this issue. You say that the Chief Justice “has effectively declared herself in opposition to the policies endorsed by voters at the last election.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Elias actually mentioned in her speech the result of the 1999 referendum on law and order and stated that there is support for longer sentences. However, her point is that imposing longer sentences and imprisoning more and more offenders simply hasn’t worked. She made the point that it costs almost $100,000 to imprison one offender each year. That’s a lot of money, especially given the probability that when the offender is released, he will offend again.
Graeme wrote: “The real danger is that people will view Dame Sian’s decisions through this light, and the perception of bias in her decisions will harm the judiciary and respect for the rule of law.” Hmmm, the perception of bias. Remember that Dame Sian removed herself from a case involving a jockey (Lisa Cropp) who had once ridden a horse owend by Elias’ husband! The issue of a possible conflict of interest was tenuous at best but Elias removed herself from the case. So it may pay to be careful what you say. Dame Sian is one of several judges on the Supreme Court. She doesn’t have the power of veto over other judges’ decisions.
One final point: I wish commenters wouldn’t say that Elias is a mate of Helen Clark. I suspect that the former PM dislikes Elias with a passion. You will recall that Elias was on bench of the Court of Appeal when, in 2003, it allowed Maori to take a case in regards to the foreshore and seabed. This prompted Michael Cullen to publicly criticise her. Elias is no friend of the Labour Party.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:12 am
Also interesting that she waits until now to come out with these public statements. Why not last year when labour was in power? Of course, I think we all know the “why” of her timing.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:12 am
It should be noted that NZ’s rate of imprisonment is second only to the US. It’s higher than in all the other developed countries. That’s nothing to be proud of. Why do we imprison at greater rates than the UK, Canada and Australia? The Chief Justice is entitled to ask the same question and to come up with some possible answers.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:15 am
THis is true Brian. She’s obviously worried that the right are far more aligned with the voices of Garth McVicor and other ‘Sensible Sentencers’ who are more likely to focus on emotion and vengence than research and evidence. I’d say something if I were her too! Good point…
July 20th, 2009 at 9:16 am
No Ross, she’s not entitled to do that, unless she does so by means of a private chat with the Justice Minister, or some other private forum. She’s blown it. Her role demands that she not become political. It goes to the very safety of the decisions she and her fellow judges make. She’s most welcome to leave the bench and stand for political office, make speeches, or write as many op-eds for the newspapers as she likes. But there’s just so many reasons her speech last week was as unwise as you appear to be.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:26 am
I think Simon Power got it wrong when he said “”This Government was elected on this sentencing policy. Judges are appointed to apply it.”
It is not the role of judges to apply policy. It is their job to interpret and apply law, as Mr Power himself acknowledged. The media emphasises the “policy” half of his quote.
Frankly, I think her statement came down to “the status quo is unworkable”, and I fear that she is right on that. Without knowing enough to propose an alternative, I still don’t like her solution.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:42 am
I would recommend anyone who wants to criticise Elias first read what she said. She is not in opposition to government policy, nor in my view has she overstepped. All she has done is pulled together a number of different strands on sentencing and presented them in an authoritatve and persuasive manner.
Most judges and lawyers involved in the criminal justice system know imprsionment doesn’t work as a deterrent. If it does work violent crime would have decreased.
All Elias was doing was pointing out the obvious. As a judge involved in sentencing offennders she’s entitled to express a view on how to deal with the large number of offenders before the courts.
And if Elias has broken a constitutional convention, why has the Law Society backed her?
July 20th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Auberon wrote: “Her role demands that she not become political.” Have you actually read her speech? I doubt it. She is indeed entitled to say what she’s said. She made the point in her speech that under the Sentencing Act, offenders should be released where practicable. That is not a political statement, it is based on the legal situation as it now applies.
Brian, you are wrong. Sian Elias made the same points in her 2005 speech “Criminology in the age of talk back.” However, the issue of numbers in prison has gotten worse.
http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/speeches-and-papers
July 20th, 2009 at 9:52 am
This story proves Elias’ point.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/2605245/Sex-offender-jailed-after-failing-to-pay
July 20th, 2009 at 9:55 am
Wow, great to see an editorial that actually addresses the real concern here rather than the fatuous pseudo liberal crap the Herald came out with.
July 20th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Are you saying that the convention is more important that what actually matters in practice red?
July 20th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Of course. Judges should shut the fuck up and do their job. They are not entitled to comment on policy. Sian Elias should be fired right now. And her pension forfeit.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Red – surely even you see the convention as more nuanced than that. If you’ve ever read a judgment from any court you’d see they comment on policy all the time. I’m assuming you haven’t read the speech, given it’s careful preperation and numerous qualifications and statements. No one else was going to say what she said, and for someone with so much experience it is worth listening to.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:17 am
“Red – surely even you see the convention as more nuanced than that.”
Red doesn’t do nuance. It’s socialism in disguise.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:25 am
read the editorial and reflect
read the editorial and reflect
read the editorial and reflect
just read the f*****g editorial folks
For once the Press has it right
July 20th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Intersting that the Press should be acting as National’s press agency, or is the name of the paper accurate ??.
Every other article I have read on Power was critical, including the NZ Herald editorial ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10585302 )
“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.”
and interestingly, Paul Holmes recent article ( http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10585292 ).
“Sir Douglas Graham was on the TV One Sunday political programme Q+A a couple of weeks ago. The prisons were a matter of discussion. There are now 8400 prisoners in New Zealand. He said that when he was Justice Minister there were 4000. He asked, “Are we any safer now?” The answer, of course, is obvious.”
July 20th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Ross, I’ve read the editorial and now reflected, as you suggested.
When can I expect my Eureka moment? Will it be some time today?
July 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Sushi Goblin said: …it doesn’t matter how long and distinguished Elias’ career is. She has never won a vote in her life. She isn’t endorsed or mandated to represent government opinion.
Which makes her the ideal person to speak out in this issue. Elias can approach the issue from an evidence-based perspective of what works and what does not, rather a political one that panders to redneck public opinion fomented by bigots like Garth McVicar and David Garrett.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Toad,
I’d suggest the experts in this area are the victims of the 400,000+ crimes reported annually.
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 11:09 am
So you’re saying JC that victims of serious crime, including the CJ herself, know more than someone who has worked in the area for 40 years? Nice one…
July 20th, 2009 at 11:14 am
JC said: I’d suggest the experts in this area are the victims of the 400,000+ crimes reported annually.
And they’ve been safer since we started locking people up for longer? Crime rate plummeting thanks to longer sentencing! I feel a Tui ad coming on.
Lets start addressing the causes of crime, rather than what to do to offenders after the event. Then we might make some impact on the stats.
July 20th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Yeah, funny that the Press editorial is probably written by Colin Espiner, who doesn’t seem to understand the principles of the judiciary and got things horrendously wrong with regard to the constitution and the role of the judiciary in this fuckwitted blog post:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/on-the-house/2600772/Dame-Sians-last-stand
They’re remarkably similar in content, no?
Fairfax hacks need to stick to regurgitating press releases – pretty much like Espiner admits that’s all they do in this fuckwitted blog post:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/blogs/on-the-house/2582620/Cruise-control
July 20th, 2009 at 11:51 am
fired right now. And her pension forfeit.
..wouldnt matter a shit…shes married to Hugh Fletcher so dosh aint a problem…sooner she fucks off the better..
hand wringing sandal wearing sickly white liberal..
July 20th, 2009 at 11:57 am
“So you’re saying JC that victims of serious crime, including the CJ herself, know more than someone who has worked in the area for 40 years?”
For a start, you have qualified my figures on total crime by stating “serious” crime. It don’t work that way.
Second, Elias isn’t an expert in the politio/socio/economic areas of crime that persuaded Labour to increase sentences and reduce parole. As Kim Workman said
“Mr Workman said that over the last 10 years, 85 per cent of the increase in New Zealand prison numbers had come about through longer sentences and tighter parole provisions.”
And third, in 2000 NZ had 432,000 total reported crimes against a population of around 3.8 million. In 2008 we had 431,000 total crimes against a population of about 4.2 million.. so we’ve had a significant drop. While there may not be a corelation between the drop and more prisoners it certainly doesn’t support a change in the rate of imprisonment through amnesties and lighter sentences.
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Toad,
“And they’ve been safer since we started locking people up for longer? Crime rate plummeting thanks to longer sentencing! I feel a Tui ad coming on.”
Certainly falling, as I’ve just posted.
“Lets start addressing the causes of crime, rather than what to do to offenders after the event. Then we might make some impact on the stats.”
FFS, we’ve been addressing the causes of crime for 5000 years!
You improve the stats by doing something about a subject we’ve analysed forever.. there’s fucking nothing we don’t know about the subject!
As I’ve said, we can just build more jails without any social objective beyond reducing crime and it will work.. if for no better reason than we have an aging population that doesn’t want to go there and would find it really hard time. And if we want do stop recidivism we need to have purpose built facilities that treat the mental illness and drug addiction thats a big part of the crime problem.
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
I am a social liberal, I cannot help it. It must be my English upbringing.
I really cannot get so exercised about the Chief Justice’s comments as some of those commenting here. I wrote about this here http://bit.ly/zWN7L where those who wish can find a link to the full text of what the CJ actually said as opposed to what some think she said.
I do not think that the CJ over stepped the remark, nor do I think she was greatly liked by Helen Clark. Clark and Cullen both ‘took’ against the judiciary.
As for those who rail against activist judges, I suggest that you take a look at the US Supreme Court, or look at the English Court of Appeal under Lord Denning for example.
Since time immemorial judges have interpreted the law. In many ways we should be thankful that they have done.
I think it is time for a debate, but one that is not led by the vindictiveness of the hang’em, shoot’em and flog’em brigade nor by the woolly left hand wringers . It needs to be rooted in an analysis of the facts not emotion.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
JC wrote, “As I’ve said, we can just build more jails without any social objective beyond reducing crime and it will work..”
No, it won’t because it hasn’t been working thus far. We have record numbers of prisoners, second only to the US in our rate of imprisonment and it’s projected to get much worse. That should tell you something. And as the CJ said, it costs almost a 100K a year to keep an offender locked up. That’s a lot of money to keep a frail 89 year old in prison. I’d rather that kind of money was spent elsewhere.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
So why is it ok for Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft to talk about the effectiveness of the youth offending strategy, but it’s not ok for the the Chief Justice to talk about policy?
He has also criticised bootcamps, but no howls of outrage.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
JC said: …we need to have purpose built facilities that treat the mental illness and drug addiction thats a big part of the crime problem.
Ah, now we’re getting there.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
ross:
“No, it won’t because it hasn’t been working thus far. We have record numbers of prisoners, second only to the US in our rate of imprisonment…”
No, you don’t. It’s a myth.
http://nicic.gov/Library/022140
Above the median rate, so certainly a very punitive society, but nowhere near the number required to be second.
July 20th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
DPF,
How odd that you pick up on one editorial criticising Dame Sian, yet ignore all of those supporting her right to speak out on this issue. Such as the NZ herald, the Sunday-Star Times, and even the Southland Times. As it concludes,
“Incidentally, forget the wittering scolds who cite the convention that the judiciary and parliamentarians refrain from criticising each other. They criticise each other plenty, albeit in slightly encoded and imprecise fashion, using the language of exasperation. Unhelpful, really. To the extent that it does become overt, judges would be more sinned against than sinning. And anyway, if this is such a lofty and important principle, then we should be commiserating with Mugabe and Bainimarama over the way they have been sorely mistreated by their jurists from time to time.”
July 20th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Chris_C
We are second only to the USA I think when you look at members of the OECD. In any event that is semantics, our % of population locked up is not something we should be proud of
July 20th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
> Above the median rate, so certainly a very punitive society, but nowhere near the number required to be second.
That’s a moot point and depends on when the survey was done. For example, in the link you provided the figure of 7600 prisoners is cited for NZ in 2006. But by the following year, there were 8500 in prison here. So by that stage, we might have been number 2 in the OECD. Rankings are likely to change over time.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
@adamsmith
Depends what they did. You have a startlingly high murder rate compared to Europe. I haven’t compared all violent crime convictions, but the murder rate alone is higher than I expected.
But you’re not even a close second in the OECD rates of incarceration. Mexico, the Czech Republic and Poland, for example, have a higher rate of incarceration that NZ. It’s not semantics where you’re talking about how punitive a society is and measuring it against a country with an incarceration rate per 100k population up in the 700s.
Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there’s a danger society can be too focused on incarceration as punishment rather than other forms of prevention. But I do think it’s important that if statistics are going to be quoted, they’re the right ones. That’s for the benefit of your own argument rather than any sense of oneupmanship.
@ross
True, but they’re the only comparable figures I have to hand. I’d love to compare years, but I don’t really have the time or inclination to go through all those. But as I just pointed out, there’s at least three OECD countries with much higher rates. In order to get second place outside the OECD, you’d have to beat Russia’s rate of over 600 per 100k population.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Chris,
You are correct about Russia but I’m not sure we should be comparing ourselves with Russia. We may have been higher than Mexico and Poland in 2007. As I said, our prison muster was 8500 then. That may have given us a figure in excess of 200 prisoners per 100,000 population. Whether that was higher than Mexico or Poland is unclear but it’s possible. Even if we’re not number 2 in the OECD, we’re higher than most other countries. (Our rate of Maori imprisonment, however, is right up there with the US.) In defence of CJ Elias, her speech included the comment that “we have been told we are number two…” or words to that effect. She also mentioned that our prison population is forecast to reach 10,795 by 2017. That’s a big increase over what it is now.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
There is a difference between criticising government policy and making comments on possible solutions to a social problem. I happen to think Elias has done the latter, note that she did not call for the Government to follow her words (unlike Power’s thinly veiled tough guy threat in response).
Also those who wish she had a “private chat” with the Justice Minister. Personally I would prefer the CJ did not have private chats about anything with the Justice Minister. If you are concerned about impropriety or the appearance of such then this would have to top everything.
July 20th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
I checked the incarceration rate the other day and it roughly goes like this:
67th in the world
7th in the OECD
2nd in the English speaking OECD
And several times less than the US that has to contend with millions coming across a long land border and many cities large enough to be crime incubators.
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Toad,
“Ah, now we’re getting there.”
Heh, where I’ve been for some time.
Now, if we’ll acknowledge this is a Maori problem and get Pita to own and build his own jails we’ll truly be getting there.
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Key has publicly made what sounds like a token reprimand on Breakfast TV.
But I hope he was misquoted on this “A random amnesty that lets anybody out – we are not going to sign up for that” – no one has suggested anything like that.
Also “I don’t think its something we should be overly worried about judges will in the end have a view and we rely on their judgement when they are passing their sentences.”
Mr Key said he admired Dame Sian and said she had a fine legal mind.
Another editorial: “A wise leader would have welcomed this contribution on one of the country’s most vexing problems and encouraged the debate, rather than merely throwing a hissy-fit about convention. Surely a more considered approach than that espoused by the likes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust is required.”
“http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/opinion/2609567/Editorial-Chief-Justices-ideas-worth-considering
I suspect Key is doing what he thinks he should in public for appearances sake, but I would be very surprised if he hasn’t taken what Elias has said on board for at least some pondering.
July 20th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
“Even if we’re not number 2 in the OECD, we’re higher than most other countries.”
Because blockhead, the crime rate is higher.
More crime, more people in jails. FFS..!!!
July 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Cerium re Key quote – No, I heard him say it. He seems to be deliberately exaggerating what was said for dramatic effect. Why are they afraid to debate the issue?
July 20th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Ross 9:05:
That was precisely my point. Elias didn’t sit in Cropp because it could have given a perception of bias. No-one seriously thinks she would have been biased in favour of (or against) Lisa Cropp, but she stood down anyway – to avoid even the perception of bias.
DPF’s scaremongering that “the real danger is that Elias may use her position as head of the judiciary to impose her personal views…” was precisely that – scaremongering. There is no danger that Elias will actually be biased in favour of shorter sentences. There is a concern that some people will look at her decisions and perceive bias which isn’t there – but even the perception of bias is damaging (just as it would have been in Cropp).
July 20th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Its worth having a closer look at the statistics:
As far as Murder, Rape and other similarly serious offenses go NZ is actually lower than many other countries including US and Australia. Where we are highly represented is in areas like burglary, theft, “car conversion” and petty assault; making a fuss over murderers getting 22 years instead of 100 is thus a red herring as far as improving the crime stats goes.
During the election, John Key made me cringe with his “we are going to target the serious crime” line. While I would applaud any reasonable measures to further reduce murder or rape, the “serious crime” is not where we are having the greatest problem. It is the more petty and youth gang related crime that we are greatly over-represented.
In that light, I will suggest this as an additional sentence to discourage theft (that is sure to upset some sensitive civil libertarians): allow random searches (without warrent) to be carried out on anyone or their property who has been convicted of theft, for a period of ~5-10 years after release from prison. Should reduce the rate of reoffending a bit, and only steps on the civil liberties of convicted criminals.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
“Its worth having a closer look at the statistics:”
Yeah, sure is.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
July 20th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Red
What would happen to NZ’s crime rate is you removed the crimes committed by a certain ethnic group out of that graph?
July 20th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Paradigm,
What we have are sophisticated parasites that know better than to kill their hosts. Its not unusual when the Govt promotes some hard line action that legal types, social welfare types, Maori reps etc will say something to the effect of “If you do that we will be forced to be more violent, even kill you.. much better you just allow us/them to take a bit and not hurt you”.
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Thankyou redbaiter, I actually went to that site to have a look before posting. May I suggest that you look up murder per capita and rape per capita: You will find quite a number of other countries worse than us. Then look up assaults per capita, burglery per capita etc. You will find my point stands.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
“You will find my point stands.”
Yes, I am familiar with those stats and know the situation reasonably well. I agree with you.
The real point is that while NZ is awash with crime, these namby pamby liberals still talk and carry on as we have crime levels that are tolerable.
We are actually in an emergency situation.
No time for wittering liberals and their drippy ideas.
Law abiding citizens are suffering and afraid and the situation needs to be remedied right damn now..!!!.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Imposing more and longer sentences of incarceration leads to higher inmate numbers. Why would this be regarded as a failure of policy, surely it is in fact the intent? I don’t know if anyone really believes locking thugs up for 10 years instead of 7 makes them less likely to offend, other than for the extra 3 years they are in prison, which is really the point.
If I got to vote my tax dollars, there’d be plenty going on new prisons and police.
July 20th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
On the one hand, I agree with Madam Chief Justice. Simply locking these fuckwits up for longer is never going to work. Not until we realise that we need to make prison a less attractive lifestyle choice. Heated floors and plasma TVs? Fuck off. A converted shipping container should be a privilege. If there aren’t enough cells, pitch some fucking tents. Enough hand-holding, already. Would everyone please take 3 steps to the right, stop this nonsense about prisoner’s rights and start thinking about what the public and, especially, victims of crime deserve? Prison needs to be a punishment, not a fucking holiday camp.
Cue Peter Williams’ leftist Howard League bullshit now…
July 20th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
In some countries you wouldn’t even bother to report some crimes. In NZ the police are generally trusted and generally do a good job following up reports of crime. So comparing rates of crime between various countries can be dangerous.
What we do know is that the rate of incarceration is continuing to rise, with no noticable decrease in the rate of violent crime reported in NZ. So incarceration as a means of preventing crime doesn’t seem to be working.
As Elias pointed out, in most cases these people have to be released eventually. Often they come out more dangerous than when they went in.
As for those who bleat about “prisoners’ rights”, if you treat a person like an animal they’ll behave like one.
Elias is not anti-prison. She has acknowledged there is a place for prison. But anyone who thinks locking people away is a cure for violent crime is dreaming.
July 20th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Really?? That’s a bit schizo, seeing he then contradicts himself in his column Judges Free to Comment Like it or Not, also in today’s Press.
July 20th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
SBY,
I mentioned earlier that crime costs about $9 billion per annum. Not sure if that accounts for pain and suffering but probably not.
Thats a huge sum of money in potential savings, and our increased lockups of the last decade show a a drop in the rate of crime. More and purpose designed detention centres need to be considered because amnesties etc just won’t cut it.
The other thing to look at is the crime resolution rate. According to my Yearbook 2004 the resolution rate was in the 90% range 1880-1940, 65% in 1960 and then crashing to 42% in 1985.. where its remained ever since.
Its time to admit that whatever police number formulae are being used.. they are inadequate. We need to double the number of police and institute citizen patrols till we get control of our streets and homes/businesses again. There’s a hundred other things to do, but thats how we start.
One of the few ways to earn good export dollars after this recession will be tourism.. and we are blowing it if we can’t make safe and clean streets one of our biggest attractions.
JC
July 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
RB at 2:20
“More crime, more people in jails. FFS..!!!”
That issue is in dispute. Just because someone commits a crime doesn’t mean they’ll end up in prison. Some people are given community sentences, others are discharged without conviction or are given diversion.
The question is: how do we reduce the volume of crime and how do we reduce prison numbers? These are difficult questions.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
This deserves a thorough fisking, DPF, though in deference to the length to which this comment would otherwise extend, I’ll deal with only the premise of your (and the Press’s) argument, that Sian Elias has overstepped some constitutional boundary.
There is in fact very little in terms of legislation or common law which defines the role of a Chief Justice in a Westminster Parliamentary system. The Australians hold that it includes:
Certainly recently retired Australian Chief Justice Murray Gleeson spoke out on many issues. He once even wrote an article for a blog!
While people naturally agreed and disgareed with him, Australians seemed robust enough to accept that the Chief Justice has a role in the debate; indeed that he (or she) can bring a unique perspective.
In Canada it’s accepted that:
The Alberta Chief Justice believes:
One of the best Chief Justices I’ve personally observed was The Hon David K Malcolm AC, the recently retired Chief Justice of Western Australia. His observations on the matter are well worth noting at some length:
Sian Elias’s statements are entirely consistent with the way in which a Chief Justice behaves in similar jurisdictions. Whether or not we agree with her opinion, are we not a mature enough democracy to permit her a say?
It seems you, and the Press, think not. That is of course your right. But please don’t try to pretend that that opinion is based on some fine Westminster tradition of a mute judiciary, as no such tradition exists.
July 20th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Redbaiter proves he is still a moron, incapable of intelligent comment on any topic ever.
What moron made her a judge anyway, she should be shot, her political party disbanded (with assets confiscated) and membership made illegal for a decade.
July 20th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
JC, the rate of violent crime has not shown any noticeable decline, despite tougher sentences and more people in prison than ever before.
The issue of amnesties was only one part of one of the five recommendations by the Chief Justice. The other recommendations need to be examined seriously.
Locking more people up won’t work to reduce violent crime. If it worked why does the US still have a high rate of violent crime?
I’d rather see my taxpayer dollars going towards something that works. Detention and imprisonment don’t.
July 20th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
SBY, I haven’t seen crime treated harshly here in New Zealand. Infact, crime should be treated harsher. I don’t believe it should be about the criminals but about the protection of the public. The sights have gone off the public and are always about the criminal. If someone doesn’t want to change, they won’t. I am all for rehabilitation if that person truly wants it. I also know if they don’t nothing in this world will change them. At least locking them up might save a few lives. The prison system here is a joke because the prisoners are off to summer camp. Look at Singapore, they are seeing results.
July 21st, 2009 at 9:12 am
Jackp, I’m also interested in protecting the public.
Sure, some people have to be put away. But imprisonment doesn’t work to rehabilitate most people. In fact some people come out of prison more dangerous than when they went in. So unless we imprison people forever we have to find another way. Otherwise we’re not protecting the public at all. We can’t afford to imprison people forever, and the majority of people would agree that most offenders should be given a second chance.
I agree that Singapore is seeing results, if by results you mean shutting down freedom of speech and convicting bloggers of sedition. No thanks.