A matter of substance
November 17th, 2011 at 4:27 pm by David FarrarOver at Stuff I’ve blogged on an actual policy issue, shock horror. I chose law & order as I think it is a great example of a policy that actually matters to NZers, and has huge impact on our lives. An extract:
I regard law and order policies as among the most important, after the economy. Crime affects New Zealanders so profoundly. If you are a victim of crime, your life may never be the same again. Even a nonviolent burglary can leave you feeling vulnerable and violated, while serious rapes and sexual assaults many people never recover from. And those who lose loved ones to criminal acts must relive the horror and sadness constantly.
However, law and order policies affect more than just the victims of crime. Few of us are perfect and never break the law, whether it be speeding, littering, illegal drugs or more serious offences. It is important to have sentences that are appropriate for the crime. We don’t send people to jail for driving at 106kmh, but we might if they were driving at 190kmh for the fifth time, and almost certainly if they kill someone at that speed. …
I think there is some merit in [Labour's] approach. Sending someone to jail should be the last resort, and reserved for either extremely serious crimes, or someone who doesn’t respond to lesser punishments. Once you send someone to jail, they are probably going to remain a criminal for the foreseeable future, so the point of prison becomes protecting the community. Hence I tend to agree that sending someone to prison for just two months is of little value. Either keep them out of jail, or send them away for a decent period.
I suggest people read the full column.
Related posts:
- Police chases
- Prison Numbers
- Protection Orders
- National to end parole for the worst violent offenders
November 17th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
I can see some merit in short sentences – giving people a taste of what it will be like if the offend more. And it’s relative – two months in jail would feel like a hefty sentence for me (I don’t intend trying it out).
Vote:November 17th, 2011 at 4:35 pm
2 weeks in military prison should sort a few out….
Vote:November 17th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Agreed Pete, a sentence of 2-6 months would be enough to scare the bejesus out of many people, particularly those of the middle class. The chances are that they wouldn’t do it again. The sentences of more than that for first timers are a waste of time and money, even for violent crimes unless there is substantial evidence that they’d do it again (in which case prison is a preventative measure not a punishment).
Vote:November 17th, 2011 at 5:25 pm
My wife’s 1996 Corolla had the window smashed the other night so some toerag could riffle through the car looking (presumably) for loose change. There was nothing, but now we have to go through the hassle and expense of getting a replacement window and fixing the dent caused by the hammer cause they had useless aim.
Now this is a minor crime. Except:
* My wife now feels unsafe working after hours, which is where she was when it happened.
* That toerag has no sense of doing anything wrong because he’s got away with it, and even if he were caught it’d be wet bus ticket time
Why has everyone forgotten the experience of New York when they embarked on the broken windows theory? It works. Labour’s policy will mean more broken windows, more intimidation, more petty theft and robbery becuase there will be no consequence for those crimes.
If you aren’t going to send people to jail for short terms, then the alternative still needs to be significant. It still has to hurt. The consequence still has to outweigh the gain of crime. Otherwise there’s nothing stopping the Green’s sticker brigade moving on to stoning someone’s house, or harassing an MP’s family.
Public humiliation is a powerful force. I’d advocate for these “minor’ criminals to be in the stocks for a few days having all manner of disgusting crap thrown at them, where their face and name is on public display. Then they can clean up the public square before the next lot get their turn.
Vote:November 17th, 2011 at 5:43 pm
‘The good thing is we’ve lowered the crime rate by seven per cent across the country so they do have a little bit of spare time and this is a really important issue’
Does he really want Labour to win, come on, someone advise him not to say stupid things. No one wants Labour to win, but maybe Key?
Vote:November 17th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
It is already policy not to send people to prison for less than 6 months unless there are unusual circumstances – it has been that way for the last 40 years. Very, very few people are sentenced to less than 6 months prison, and AFAIK they are repeat offenders where non custodial sentences have not worked or offenders who refuse to do their non-custodial sentences. So all in all, while Charles’s policy sounds fine, it effectively leaves the courts effectively toothless for these special circumstances. In practice it will save little money.
Perhaps courts need to be given wider options to deal with contempt than imprisonment. Options would be home detention, or removal of various rights (as bankrupcy does).
Vote:November 18th, 2011 at 8:07 am
Anyone sent to SCE NEVER does it again.
It was also very rare for a sentance to exceed three weeks. Looks bloody useful to me.
Vote: