Chief Justice hits at calls for harsher sentences

Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias spoke out against harsher punishment for crime yesterday, saying long prison sentences might not make communities safer.

She cited international research suggesting longer sentences might even increase reoffending.

Dame Sian said the rate of crime was a proper public concern.

But in the age of talkback, she said, it was important to inform the public about what worked and what did not.

"There is an unwillingness among some to face up to the cost and risk to society in treating prison and lengthier prison terms as the best strategy for dealing with crime.

"Some groups seem to consider that community-based sentences are no punishment and are ineffective compared to prison sentences."

After exchanging political barbs with Prime Minister Helen Clark and other ministers last year, Dame Sian was at pains yesterday to ensure her speech to a Wellington conference of international criminologists was not contentious.

"I entitled this talk 'criminology in the age of talkback', and then realised that it was yet another controversial topic, and my new year resolution was to avoid controversy," she said.

But Dame Sian did not steer away from debating the wisdom of assuming longer prison terms would make society safer.

She cited English academic works that questioned the usefulness of "political posturing" and sloganising, such as British Prime Minister Tony Blair's favourite:

"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - adopted here by United Future.

Dame Sian said Canadian research, based on 300,000 inmates, found that imprisonment compared with community sentences did not reduce reoffending after release.

It also found longer prison sentences might even have increased reoffending, while community sentences might be more effective in reducing crime.

"Long prison sentences are counterproductive for the eventual security of the public, measured by recidivism. Getting that message across must be a priority."

Dame Sian said efforts in Finland to reduce the prison muster had been helped by a political accord, which had ensured for two decades there would be no use of "fear of crime" as a populist theme.

Describing the 2002 Sentencing Act as a "restrained and sophisticated" statute, Dame Sian said it and parole reforms had been made to ensure there was a proper response to electoral requirements that serious offending was met with firm punishment.

But they also promoted community-based sentencing and restorative justice.

However her address also pointed to risks to human rights in the present criminal justice system.

She said with parole now available earlier in a person's sentence, public expectations of "truth" in sentencing might be disappointed.

Garth McVicar, spokesman for the Sensible Sentencing Trust, said Dame Sian's comments were a step backwards in criminal punishment.

He agreed that prison sentences alone were not the answer, rather part of a package of measures that needed to be in place.

"But our dealings with the criminal element reveal they are saying harsher punishments do deter them. That makes society safer," Mr McVicar said.

He did not agree with "warm and fuzzy" sentences and dismissed the research from Canada.

"Their [Canada's] liberal regime is second only to New Zealand."

Mr McVicar said much of the community sentence work was not carried out and there was "little consequence" for the perpetrators.

2002 Sentencing Act

* The act allows some offenders to be paroled after serving a third of their sentences.

* It aims to tailor sentences to offenders as well as offences.

* But it also increased imprisonment rates and the average length of sentences.