Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Victim advocates are calling for changes to the three-strikes law to ensure offenders receive a warning for each crime they commit that is eligible under the law.

They say a “loophole” in the legislation means those who offend while on bail are avoiding strike warnings, and have asked Justice Minister Judith Collins to consider making changes.

I have blogged on this in the past and think a law change is very sensible, and in keeping with the intentions of the legislation.

Under the law, violent and sexual offenders receive a normal sentence and a warning for strike one, a sentence without parole for strike two, and the maximum sentence for that offence, without parole, for strike three.

A warning can be given only when someone is convicted. If they go on to commit further strike offences, they will receive further warnings.

But if they commit other strike offences between their arrest and sentencing, they do not receive a warning for it.

And there are already perverse incentives to commit further crimes on bail, as they may not lead to a longer sentence. If someone is charged with say rape, they should be told when given bail that if convicted of rape it will be a (say) first strike, and if they commite any other strikes offences while on bail, that will get them a second strike if also convicted.

If the charge does not result in a conviction, the provisional warning would be wiped.

As it should be.

By August, 1892 people had been given first strike warnings after being convicted for qualifying offending such as sexual or violent crime. Eleven offenders have been given a second strike.

We should get some fascinating data over time about the re-offending rates of those who get strikes, as compared to before the regime.

The Herald editorial:

The Government’s proposal to close courts and shift registries to nearby towns is another welcome sign that crime is on the wane. One of the most intractable policy challenges for the state is starting to pay a dividend. …

Now the Courts Minister has moved to meet the reduced demand on the courts by cutting the total number of court houses and reducing others’ opening hours. Towns such as Warkworth and, on the West Coast, Whataroa, will lose their seldom-used courts and those needing their services will be required to front at North Shore or Greymouth. Whataroa had just 11 hours of sitting time last year. As well as streamlining the costs of low-use courts, the Government will move some functions online with a goal of cutting 90,000 hours of effort between court and police staff. Courts Minister Chester Borrows also talks of defendants being able to deal with the court from their lawyers’ officers by Skype. In a damp economy the need for innovative ways of saving taxpayer dollars is all the greater.

Labour has opposed every cost reduction for the last four years, including this one.

They want to keep courthouses open even when there is not enough crime. I guess their policy is to increase crime, so that no courthouses need close.

Chloe Johnson at NZ Herald reports:

A teenager who claims she was sexually abused as a child has taken the law into her own hands after police declined to take the case to court.

Hastings student Mikayla Ziebe, 16, hand-delivered more than 100 leaflets to Napier houses last week, accusing an elderly man of being a paedophile.

Ziebe’s mother, Julie Wakefield, supported the action.

“This is her way of being heard,” Wakefield said. “It is her choice and I fully support her.”

The letter has four photos of the man, his name and the message: “He is in his 70s, watch out for him.”

If she was abused by the man, then I can understand her anger and desire to protect others. There’s a part of me that thinks it is good she is not just being a victim.

It was also left in the letterbox of the accused. Ziebe and her mother reported the allegations to Hastings police, which investigated but were unable to press charges because of a lack of evidence.

After four months of counselling this year, Ziebe decided to publicly accuse the man.

“It’s horrible and no one will believe me,” Ziebe said. “I want them to know I am serious.”

Eastern District crime manager detective inspector Rob Jones said police investigated the allegations on two separate occasions and both times fell short of finding sufficient evidence to prosecute.

From what I have observed, the Police tend to prosecute – even when they have a he said vs she said type scenario. I’m in no way doubting her word, but we don’t know what evidence the Police found or did not found. Were there specific dates alleged which he can prove he was not here for etc?

I’m also rather concerned that the motivation is “to be heard”, rather than to protect others. Sticking a copy in his letterbox also suggests it is about revenge – and understandable if the allegations are correct – but ultimately wrong.

Of course you can argue she has freedom of speech, and he can sue for defamation, but it isn’t quite that simple.

The accused man told the Herald on Sunday it was a vicious attack on his family, which they reported to police. He denied the allegations and was overwhelmed with support from his neighbours. “I would be in jail if I was guilty,” he said.

Well, not quite.

Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesperson Garth McVicar said it was a “natural outcome” for people to seek justice when they felt let down by the system.

Auckland Sexual Abuse Help clinical manager Kathryn McPhillips said only 1 per cent of child abuse cases ended in a conviction because the justice system was not child-friendly.

1%? I’d like to see a reference for that figure. I know only around 10% of rape complaints lead to a conviction, but 1% seems a very improbable figure to me. That suggests that if there are 5,000 child abuse convictions are year, in fact we have 500,000 case of abuse annually.

Judith Collins has announced:

Justice Minister Judith Collins introduced legislation to Parliament today that creates special orders to better protect the public from serious sexual or violent offenders. 

The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill will allow the High Court to order offenders who pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending after they are released from jail, to be detained.

Public Protection Orders (PPOs) would see offenders held in a secure facility until the High Court is convinced they are safe for release.

“This Government is committed to delivering on our election promise to introduce a civil detention regime for the most high-risk offenders,” Ms Collins says.

“The safety of New Zealanders is paramount and it should not be jeopardised by a small number of offenders who continue to be a serious threat after they are released from prison.

“PPOs are a new tool to deal with society’s worst offenders in a way that current sentencing and release provisions, such as extended supervision orders and preventative detention, don’t allow.” …

Offenders subject to a PPO will be able to seek a court review of their detention at any time. If they no longer meet the criteria, they will be released and placed on a protective supervision order.

PPOs are not being designed to target a specific individual and are expected to apply to between five to 12 offenders over the next decade. Many are expected to be child sex offenders. 

A pity we didn’t have this law a few months ago.

It’s one of those laws that we shouldn’t need, but sadly we do.

Stuff reports:

The high risk sex offender dubbed ‘The Beast of Blenheim’, Stewart Murray Wilson, will stay under extended supervision for the maximum 10 years after his prison sentence ends and his parole term expires.

The order was imposed by Justice Graham Lang in a written decision issued in the High Court at Christchurch today, a week after he heard a day of legal argument.

He described Wilson as presenting “a rare and special case” and said: “He will remain at risk of offending against young females well beyond the expiry of his release conditions.

“An extended supervision order is therefore necessary, in my view, to achieve the statutory objective of protecting such persons from the risk of further offending in the future by Mr Wilson.”

Does anyone know exactly what extended supervision involves? How often can he be checked up on?

In 1995, a jury found Wilson guilty on seven charges of rape, one charge of attempted rape, two charges of ill-treatment of children, one charge of bestiality, one charge of attempting to stupefy and two of stupefying, three of assault on a woman, and six of indecent assault.

Many of the charges were laid as representative charges, indicating the offences had been committed more than once.

Wilson was jailed for 21 years in 1996 and has remained in custody even though he became eligible for parole some time ago because the Parole Board considers he presents a high risk of re-offending.

In hindsight 21 years was not enough.

The Daily Mail reports:

Children commit crime because they lack morals and not just because of the environment they live in, according to a new study.

Cambridge University studied around 700 young people in Peterborough for over a decade and discovered that most adolescent crime is not just youthful opportunism.

In fact, while it is agreed that urban environments trigger some young people to commit crime, it is their morality which is the biggest factor.

Other teenagers remain highly resistant to committing crime – regardless of the circumstances.

Many of us know people whose background would be one, where a life of crime might be expected. But they chose not to.

The Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study was carried out by Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology.

And it found that rather than crime being widespread among teenagers, a tiny band of delinquents have each committed a staggering 278 crimes by the age of 16, say researchers.

The thugs, who make up less than 4 per cent of the teenage population, are responsible for nearly half of youth offending, they found.

The ones who have a dozen convictions by their 21st birthday.

The researchers found that 60 per cent of the 16,000 offences were committed by a ‘crime-prone’ 16 per cent of those studied, including the hard-core of 3.8 per cent.

They committed an average of 86 crimes each between the ages of 12 and 16.

This group admitted having the weakest morals, being impulsive and short-sighted, and having no self-control.

The 16 per cent most ‘crime-averse’, who were judged to have the strongest values, accounted for only 0.5 per cent of the crimes reported.

A lack of moral compass, rather than the opportunity to commit crime or social background, was revealed to be the most important factor in youths breaking the law.

The research, which is the most comprehensive study of youth crime in Europe, found that teenagers who avoided crime did so not because they feared the consequences or lacked the chance, but because they saw it as wrong. Professor Per-Olof Wikstrom, who led the Cambridge study, said: ‘’Many young people are ‘crime-averse’ and simply don’t perceive crime as a possible course of action – it doesn’t matter what the situation is.

The idea that opportunity makes the thief – that young people will inevitably commit crime in certain environments – runs counter to our findings.

‘Rather, only the “crime-prone” become vulnerable to said opportunities when taking part in environments with a moral context that encourages or at least does not discourage crime.’

But of course no article complete without someone banning society:

But Camila Batmanghelidjh, the founder of Kids Company, a charity that works with disadvantaged children, cautioned against branding some young people as amoral.

She said it was ‘a given that it’s a good thing to teach right from wrong’, but added: ‘Society is lecturing children and young people about how well behaved they should be but it’s not behaving in a way that warrants respect.’

Yes, the problem is society is not behaving in a way that amoral young thugs respect!

The HoS reports:

Prisoners who seized a disused watchtower and broadcast messages of protest at Auckland Prison in Paremoremo seem to have little support from fellow inmates.

Aaron Forden, nicknamed Houdini, and an older, unnamed inmate took control of the prison tower on Friday morning. At noon yesterday, they started scrawling messages on the glass of the tower.

Aware of news media near the prison, they placed a black blanket behind the message to make it visible. It said: “Peaceful protest against department”.

They also wrote “Contact Peter Williams QC”. He said he was available to mediate.

But shouted comments from other inmates, audible from a road nearby, included “jump”, “hang yourself” and “what are you waiting for?”

Heh, not quite the messages of support they were probably hoping for. I imagine they thought they would be seen as heroes fighting the system, but the universal belief seems to be they are just dicks.

This was Daniel Briant’s car. He proudly shows it off on his Facebook page.

And this is it now.

Stuff reports:

Constable Jason Andrews said on one occasion Briant was caught doing burnouts in the middle of State Highway 1 near Paraparaumu in front of an off duty police officer.

He was arrested as he tried to change his “shredded tyres” in the Burger King car park nearby.

Tolley said less than three hours after receiving his third strike from the court Briant was back behind the wheel performing a burnout.

He lost control and crashed into a fence. It is understood he and a passenger fled the vehicle on foot.

He was awaiting sentencing on that fourth offence.

He had already been found guilty of driving while suspended, sustained loss of traction and dangerous driving leading to a 21 month disqualification.

A perfect first case.

There were 116 people on their second strike. “Those who are not clever enough to heed the warning should be aware that their cars could be seized and undergo a radical change in shape,” Tolley said.

I suspect most of those will be careful not to go on and get a third strike.

Good to see the law pushed through by Judith Collins have an impact.

Stuff reports:

US authorities say a father who caught a man sexually assaulting his four-year-old daughter and beat him to death may not face charges.

The father, from Texas, punched the man repeatedly in the head, killing him, Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said.

The girl had been left inside the family’s house during a social gathering on Saturday while other members of her family were tending to horses, Sheriff Harmon told CNN.

He said the father returned to the house and caught the man abusing his daughter before unleashing his attack. The man was pronounced dead at the scene.

I don’t condone vigilante justice, but this situation is different to many in that this was not a revenge attack at some later stage, but done in the heat of the moment. How many fathers would not assault someone they walked in on sexually assaulting their four year old daughter? Also the fact he did not use a weapon means it is arguable that he did not mean to actually kill him.

Even if the father is charged, I doubt any jury would convict him.

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are challenging the need for a sex offenders’ register, saying they often become public and are historically prone to mistakes which can devastate innocent people’s lives.

Police Minister Anne Tolley is considering introducing such a register, and police and the Corrections Department began work on proposals earlier this year after it was revealed a convicted paedophile was working as a teacher.

The register will not be open to the public and will only be viewed by officials with security clearance.

I’m staggered anyone could be against such a register, if it is private.

Labour’s justice spokesman Charles Chauvel said Labour would want to see evidence there was a need for a register.

“It’s all very well to say let’s have a sex offenders’ register for officials but what we need to do is be satisfied it actually served some purpose.”

A register was a “slippery slope”, he said.

“You start with an undertaking it would be a private document used for internal purposes and then in a year or two it’s a full blown public document.”

With that reasoning, the Government should have no private registers of anything at all.

However, Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar said it was “fantastic”; the lobby group had been calling for a register for years.

“It protects the public. It is the best tool which encourages offenders to change their ways.”

The Trust already had a sex offenders’ and violent offenders’ database on its website.

“We get phenomenal feedback from the public on those.”

I use both databases often. They are a very good tool. Criminal offending is not a private matter.

UPDATE: A reader emails;

The reason why Labour are opposed to a register is they think the current system is working. But who introduced the current system?

 Yet, if it is working, and the toughest in the world, how did Miki, the offender/teacher who was on an extended supervision order, get away with it for so long?

A very good point.

This is fairly unusual. An opinion column from an editor, which is not an editorial. That is because it is a personal reflection on the Beast of Blenheim by Dominion Post editor Bernadette Courtney, who covered his trial as a junior reporter.

Bernadette writes:

Parole Board members say Wilson is “likely to commit a specified sexual offence” and remains “threatening and intimidating”. Now his imminent release has become a test case, with Justice Minister Judith Collins trying to rush through new legislation to keep the Beast of Blenheim in prison indefinitely.

I back this legislation. Stewart Murray Wilson must never be released.

Why. We read on:

In 1995, I was a Dominion reporter assigned to cover Wilson’s case. Over a year I attended court hearings, spent time with his many victims, visited Wilson in prison twice and got to know his in-laws. …

During his depositions hearing, Wilson tried to pass me notes. I felt so uncomfortable that I moved seats.

The three-week hearings in Blenheim were gruelling. The court heard testimony after testimony, some from victims behind screens barely audible, they were so beaten, ashamed and destroyed. Others were so angry.

I have covered many horrific stories in my almost 30-year career as a journalist here and in Britain, but none that has affected me as much. It sounds silly but I couldn’t touch whitebait for a few years because it constantly reminded me of Wilson, a whitebaiter.

In pre-social media and internet days, my colleagues back at the office were often speechless as I recounted down the phone the details of each day’s court hearing. 

And these are people used to reporting on crime.

I have seen up close the damage this sick man has done to his own family and the many victims who were scattered across the country and wider; he picked up two young Danish hitchhikers and raped them. Both had to be flown back to New Zealand for the trial.

The women I interviewed were broken. Some had had mental breakdowns, one had become a drug addict, one was a bag of bones.

Wilson has shown no remorse, no appetite to seek proper help while in prison and still, authorities believe, is a danger.

My brush with Wilson was brief. I’m no expert on the mind of a monster. But every time Wilson comes up for parole anger stirs inside me. There will be those who argue that he has served his time and should be released.

The Government is looking at how to keep him behind bars. Ms Collins has got it right. Wilson’s crimes were so abhorrent that we should support the move.

The proposed civil detention orders are a necessary evil. I’d rather we didn’t need them, but we do. Allowing Wilson out with the near certainty he will rape or abuse is just not an option.

We know the details that shocked a nation:

Inside the caravan, Raurangi Marino locked the door and grabbed the girl around the neck as she tried to flee.

He began to choke her in an attempt to stop her screams; he did so with such force that she passed out. Then he began to beat her about the face and body with his fists and elbows while sexually assaulting her.

The attack on the girl left her with four teeth knocked out and serious internal injuries.

Both her eyes were swollen shut and she had cuts and bruising to her face.

She was rushed to Waikato Hospital in a life-threatened condition and underwent surgery for 4½ hours.

The 10 year sentence seems appropriate for me. I understand the severity of the assault had a starting point of 18 years, but then you discount 30% for the guilty plea and a discount for his age.  While not abdicating him of responsibility, his background is very sad:

Immersed in a life of gang culture, Marino grew up wanting to emulate his father and join a gang, the court was told.

His childhood was bereft of role models or strong parenting, and marked by excessive violence between his parents, and from his father.

His parents separated when he was 13 and he did not see his mother for three years.

He was badly burned as a child when his siblings ran a hot bath for him, because his mother was drunk.

The injuries to his hands required extensive skin grafts.

A family member sexually assaulted him when he was 9 and again when he was 15, the court heard.

I do wonder how he managed to stay with his parents all this time, and not get placed into care?

Bevan Hurley at HoS reports:

One of New Zealand’s most notorious sex offenders is suing the Corrections Department for $1 million over claims he was made to sleep on a thin mattress and use small towels.

Shit, I didn’t realise you could get $1 million for that. The beds and mattresses at Carrington Hall were pretty small and thin (we referred to the beds as contraceptives due to the practical challenge they posed to sharing them) so that must be worth a few hundred thousand.

In a long-running legal case, which is expected to cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, Reekie said he was deprived of adequate light, didn’t have enough toilet paper, and was called “knob rot” by guards after developing a genital infection.

Heh, someone give that guard a Tui.

Reekie was sentenced to preventive detention in 2003 with a minimum non-parole period of 25 years after being convicted on 31 charges, including abduction and rape, for offences against four female victims, aged between 11 and 69.

It’s very easy to get outraged over this, but the reality is he has no real chance of winning any damages (and even if he did, will hopefully never be released to spend it). It is tempting to say he should not even be allowed to file a lawsuit, but the trouble with that approach is you may deny other prisoners their rights. And yes while prisoners lose some rights, access to the courts is not one of them.

The best thing to do is just ignore Reekie. He is probably doing this partly to outrage people. He can not be released from prison before 2028, and probably never will be.

Simon Collins in the NZ Herald reports:

Professor Richie Poulton, director of a 40-year study which has followed 1000 people born in Dunedin in 1972-73, told the seminar that the study had found two separate groups of antisocial adolescents: an “early-onset” group whose bad behaviour began before age 5 and continued throughout their lives; and an “adolescent-onset” group who were led into bad behaviour by their peers but grew out of it.

“With the adolescent-onset group, do not do group interventions, because they are peer-driven. The last thing you should do is put them with other young people,” he said.

“So boot camps are wrong, prisons are wrong, for that group, and any other form of hanging out together, because essentially what you learn is a lot of new tricks.”

Judge Becroft said he was reassured by Professor Poulton’s talk because New Zealand’s youth justice system tried to keep young offenders out of the justice system where they would meet other offenders.

“Eighty per cent of the young offenders in New Zealand are not charged, they are dealt with by police diversion in the community. They do not come to court, which is the worst place for them,” he said.

“There is no country in the world that matches that rate, and it works best. It’s just good, firm, community-based creative intervention led by police and the community.

I agree that every effort should be made to keep youth offenders out of court, unless their crimes are so serious (murder or rape) that there is no alternative.

But going back to the work of Professor Poulton, youth offenders are broadly two categories – the early onset offenders and the adolescent onset offenders. For the latter group, the keep them away from court and prison prescription is best.

But for the early onset offenders, the reality may be that once a clear pattern has been established, then the needs of protecting the community take precedence.

Stephen Franks blogs a review of a new book:

ACCORDING TO CONVENTIONAL criminological wisdom, crime can be significantly lowered only by eliminating its “root causes”: poverty, inequality, and racism. Policing, in this view, can only respond to crime after the fact by making an arrest; preventing crime from occurring in the first place lies in the domain of economic and welfare policy. What makes New York such a powerful natural experiment is that it is, in all respects but one, Zimring shows, nearly the same city as it was in 1990, when its homicide rate was five times higher. The previously assumed drivers of crime—poverty, income inequality, drug use—have not diminished; and family breakdown—conservatives’ preferred root cause—has worsened. 

This has parallels to the debate on the child abuse green paper currently happening. Rather than focus on what law changes the Government can make to help lower child abuse rates, many are saying that there is nothing you can do unless you address poverty and/or income inequality.

They are wrong.

Stephen further blogs:

The only element of the reform I saw not touched on in the review is the contribution of the NY  courts. They cooperated. Justice became much more swift and certain. They provided 24 hour a day sittings to get rid of delays and backlogs. Instead of declining to sentence because Rikers Island city  jail complex was full, they sentenced anyway and left it to the prison authorities to handle the consequences. When I was there a prison system designed for 14000 had over 20000 prisoners. The drop in crime has cured that. The muster is now generally comfortably below the design capacity. But as stressful as it must have been for all concerned, I’m sure if we asked the thousands of offenders who were saved from being murdered had the lawlessness of the 1990’s continued, the hardships of the peak imprisonment period were a small price to pay.

New Zealand used to be the opposite. Rather than have the level of offending determine the prison population, the authorities would let the capacity of the prison system determine sentencing. The Government made changes to bail and parole laws so we would not have over-crowding in prisons!

I recommend people read the full book review.

Meet Steven Karu.

On July 4 last year, Karu was riding a bus when he performed an indecent act, the Palmerston North District Court heard yesterday.

A 13-year-old girl on the bus saw what was happening and texted her parents, asking what to do. They told her to take a picture to show to the police and to get off at the next stop. She did. Trouble was, Karu got off too. …

On October 13 last year, Karu was jailed for one year on an indecency charge but while in Manawatu Prison awaiting sentence, he sent the girl a threatening letter dated August 22. …

“And on the back ‘original hoodlum pay back’.” There was also a picture of a gang gesture and the phrase “Highbury gonna get you”. The letter to the girl contained threats against her and her family.

In it, Karu described himself as “Highbury’s worst criminal”.

He also commented that he was due to be released when the girl would be aged 16, the legal age of consent for sexual intercourse.

His letter said:

“Delete the photo or else. “I don’t want you, me, and your mum and dad to have a problem. “I didn’t mean for this to happen, I’m sorry. “If my mum dies when I’m in here, so does yours and your dad.”

Sounds a lovely chap. But this is the part that staggered me:

Judge Lynch noted Karu’s long history of offending, dating back to 1989, which included more than 180 convictions.

I might be wrong, but I imagine more than a couple of those offences would be serious enough to qualify for a strike under the three strikes law.

Karu sounds like exactly the sort of offender who should no longer get the benefit of parole and shortened sentences. I think at 180 convictions we can all agree he is not going to stop offending.

Stuff reports:

The mother of a 16-year-old boy charged with a vicious sexual attack on a 5-year-old girl at a Turangi campground says she has been hounded from her home.

That should not happen, but ….

The woman yesterday said her family had been abused and had objects thrown at their house, she believed her son was merely “a suspect” and not the monster portrayed by media.

However, just moments later it was indicated, in court, that the youngster would likely plead guilty to the charges.

Saying he is just a suspect, at the same time as he is pleading guilty, is not going to go down well with locals. Contrition would go down better.

The brutality of the teen’s alleged attack on the daughter of European tourists at Club Habitat Holiday Park drew a vitriolic crowd to his first court appearance two weeks ago, but his mother yesterday stressed “he isn’t like that”.

Well, how many mothers have said that.

The Waikato Times has obtained photos of the 16-year-old drinking alcohol with friends and family and one picture with him expressing an anti-police message, from social networking site Facebook.

I’ve seen those photos also. In case he pleaded not guilty, I had refrained from mentioning them. But now he has indicated a guilty plea I can say the photos make him look exactly like someone who would commit serious crimes.

But the teen – who is charged with rape, burglary and sexual violation causing grievous bodily harm – was tidily dressed for yesterday’s appearance in the Taupo Youth Court.

I have no doubt he looked different to these photos.

He stood silently, with his head down. About a dozen supporters were present in court, and his mother read to the court a karakia he had written.

Through the prayer he asked God for forgiveness and to make him a “man without hate, anger and stress”.

I’m sorry. Call me cynical, but I seriously doubt he wrote that prayer.

Stuff reports:

New Zealanders have donated more than $8000 to the 5-year-old girl who was brutally violated in Turangi.

The girl was asleep with her three-year-old brother in a caravan at Club Habitat holiday park when she was attacked between 10.10pm and 10.40pm on Wednesday.

She needed four hours of surgery after receiving “heart-wrenching” injuries to her face and body in the sexually-motivated attack, Detective Inspector Mark Loper said.

Hundreds of people dropped off presents at Waikato Hospital yesterday and thousands more emailed or phoned with messages of support.

Police said the girl’s parents, believed to from Belgium, were incredibly appreciative of the generosity, but there was no capacity to take any more presents.

The family would only be able to take so much back to Europe and the surplus would help put smiles on the faces of a lot of sick children at the hospital.

Police said the family were reading all of the cards and messages being sent through the Waikato DHB email and they have been a huge support.

“We are very touched by the reactions of New Zealanders,” the parents said in a statement.

I was sickened and ashamed when I read of the barbaric assault on the five year old from Belgium. But this response from hundreds of total strangers epitomises the Christmas spirit, and is a wonderful reflection of most New Zealanders.

I just hope the Police catch the man responsible, and he is jailed indefinitely. Anyone who would do this to a five year old, with sexual motivation, can never be trusted out in the community again.

Over 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.

Labour’s law and order policy is to repeal the three strikes law so repeat violent and sexual offenders get out of jail far quicker. National has just announced five new proposed law changes, on top of the 18 passed to date:

1. Make it harder for those accused of serious offences to get bail where there is a pattern of offending while on bail.
2. Make assaults on police and corrections officers an aggravating factor for sentencing.
3. Random drug and alcohol testing of those on bail or home detention, where this is a condition of their sentence or bail.
4. Only hold annual parole hearings for those offenders who are addressing their offending and/or completed parts of their offender plan. In other words, no hearing if it is obvious they will not get parole.
5. Introduce civil detention orders for the very small (5 – 12 a year) number of high-risk offenders who are clinically assessed as being near certain to re-offend when released. Such orders can be sought by the Parole Board from the High Court.

I suspect the civil detention orders are intended for cases like the Beast of Blenheim.

A former girlfriend of the man known as the Beast of Blenheim said she is devastated he will be released next year, and he should never be allowed out of prison.

Stewart Wilson was convicted in 1996 on a raft of sex offences involving 16 females over a 23 year period and is due for release next September.

Asked if he would comply with a condition that he not have any contact with a child under the age of 16, Wilson was reported to have said “I don’t give a stuff about it”.

There are not many offenders, like Wilson. But when he makes it clear he will not comply with any release conditions, and it is almost inevitable he will rape again, there is nothing the current law can do, except wait for him to offend, and then after there is a new victim, do something.

Stuff reports:

National has announced it will double the penalties for breaching protection orders and fund security improvements for the homes of family violence victims, Prime Minister and National Party Leader John Key  announced on the campaign trail today.

The policy is here.

In 2010, 976 people were convicted of breaching a protection order and, of these, 185 received a prison sentence.
National will double the maximum penalty for a single breach of a protection order to two years in prison or a fine of $10,000.

Any subsequent breaches, regardless of the period in which they occur, will be punishable by up to three years imprisonment, rather than by the current maximum of two years in prison for two or more breaches in the space of three years.

I suspect few things are more terrifying than having someone who is the subject of a protection order breach it, and turn up on your doorstep etc. Far far too many people are killed or seriously wounded in domestic violence attacks. Hopefully this policy will prevent some offenders from so blithely ignoring a protection order – or if they do, then lock them up for longer.

The Dom Post reports:

A Rotorua man who subdued a young girl with fly spray and then raped her has been jailed for 10 years.

Robin Whitiora Chadwick appeared in the High Court at Rotorua this morning on a single charge of sexual violation by rape.

Chadwick, a part time security guard, had forced the 13 year old girl to inhale two cans of fly spray before raping her at a house near Lake Tarawera in 2009. …

Chadwick continued to deny his guilt and showed no remorse towards the victim, the court heard.

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick had a previously been jailed for the rape of two younger girls in Taranaki in 1994.

In this case the girl’s young age, her vulnerability, the use of the fly spray to stupefy the girl, and the isolated location of the offending were aggravating factors in sentencing Chadwick to 10 years imprisonment, with a minimum non parole period of five years, he said.

If three strikes had been in previously, at a minimum his 1994 rape convictions would be a first strike, which means he would not be eligible for parole for this rape. This would put him away for ten years, instead of a minimum five years only. Personally I think having raped three children is enough leniency, and he shouldn’t be getting out to rape anymore.

Bit his offending is even worse than that. The Rotorua Daily Post reveals:

Justice John Priestley said Chadwick, 57, had 24 previous convictions

Now if any of those were strike offences also, then he would be getting 20 years with no parole for this rape.

Now bear in mind that Labour are committed to repealing the three strikes law,which means scum like Chadwick can carry on getting parole time after time after time. A change of Government will have real consequences.

Derek Cheng at NZ Herald reports:

The Police Association says a gun on every constable’s hip could have prevented high-profile shootings of officers, including the death of Senior Constable Len Snee in Napier in 2009.

Yes it may have, but I don’t think the prevalence of these sorts of incidents are at a high enough level (thankfully) that the benefits of arming all Police outweigh the negatives. Having arms in each police car is a sensible compromise in my opinion.

But what else does the Police Association want:

Mandatory vehicle impounding, licence suspension and possible imprisonment every time a driver flees police.

Absolutely.

Reserving the best radio spectrum for police to ensure the best data transmission, including the possibility of live CCTV feeds and mobile fingerprint terminals.

Depends. What is the quality difference between the best and second best? What impact on others would such a policy have? Worth looking into though.

Imposing non-contact conditions on remanded prisoners so they cannot intimidate potential witnesses.

No-brainer.

Empowering police to intervene early before disorder can escalate into violence.

Hmmn, I’d be a bit careful here. We don’t want pre-crimes.

The Herald reports:

A Labour government would be likely to ditch the three-strikes law for repeat offenders, a controversial policy the party vehemently opposes and says is not working.

The three-strikes regime was passed into law last year, making it mandatory for judges to impose harsher sentences on repeat criminals convicted of one of 40 violent or sexual offences.

An offender receives a normal sentence and a warning for strike one, a sentence without parole for strike two, and the maximum sentence for that offence, without parole, for strike three.

Well that should make it easier for people. Labour is campaigning to have repeat rapists and bashers spend less time in jail.

Since three strikes was passed, I’ve been noting the number of criminals appearing in court who have a long record of violent or sexual crimes, and reflecting how if three strikes had been in place previously then they would not have been able to commit their latest homicide, rape or bashing.

I suspect this is the last election at which Labour will pledge to abolish three strikes. They can do so, because the public has yet to see it fully implemented. But in a couple of years probably a Judge will send some thug with a massively long list of crimes away for the maximum sentence without parole, and it will be more popular than toast. Once that has happened no political party will dare pledge to abolish it.

So as long as Labour do not get to form Government in 2011, I think three strikes will be safe for good. This is their last chance to repeal it.

Clio Francis at Stuff reports:

For the first time since the Depression, the prison population has shown a sustained drop – and is on track to tumble further.

In the past decade the prison population grew by 45.6 per cent – but the latest annual Justice Sector Forecast predicts that in the next 10 years it will fall by 6.2 per cent.

The decrease is being attributed to a falling crime rate and to new police tactics that have seen fewer people brought before the courts.

Corrections Department spokesman Brendan Anstiss said: “There are ups and down in the forecast each year and each month, but in modern history this is the first sustained drop.

So long as serious and repeat offenders are jailed, to keep the community safe, I’m all for having fewer people in prison.

Corrections Minister Judith Collins said the falling crime and prison population rates were a “dramatic drop”.

“The people who should be in prison are in prison, but we don’t want low-level offenders in prison if there is a better way of dealing with them. It’s a very expensive option and we know that the younger they are when they end up in prison the more likely they are to stay there for a very long time.

It will be great if the three strikes law actually leads to less people in prison, because of a deterrence effect.