KEY POINTS:
Graeme Burton's alleged crimes following his release on parole have given rise to much comment - some informed and some less so. And there will certainly be much more as the full details of what occurred after his release emerge.
One thing that has already been highlighted as a side effect of the debacle of Burton's release is the absence of reliable statistics on the efficacy of parole, and the likelihood and nature of reoffending by parolees. This dearth of information can and should be remedied immediately.
Last weekend, Peter Williams QC - a prominent criminal defence lawyer - was interviewed on a radio programme. I listened to the interview with mounting incredulity - particularly to his claim that parole was successful "90 per cent of the time".
Clearly his definition of "successful" differs markedly from mine. As I understand it, about 60 per cent of parolees re-offend within two years.
Clearly Mr Williams and I cannot both be right - unless perhaps his definition of a "successful" life parolee is one who doesn't kill anyone else within two years.
Determining which of us is correct - or even closer to being correct - is difficult, because the Corrections and Justice Departments' figures are confusing and difficult to interpret.
One wonders if the figures are "massaged" because neither department wishes the public to know just how badly the system is failing.
Some years ago, while researching a book on capital punishment in New Zealand, I tried to find out how many prisoners were at that time serving a second or subsequent sentence for murder or manslaughter. Neither department was able to tell me, saying that such figures are not kept. Why not?
With the help of a criminologist friend who does not massage statistics - even when they undermine his arguments - we were able to determine that there were six or seven repeat killers serving "life" imprisonment in late 1999.
That figure has undoubtedly changed as at least two of those have since been paroled.
How many second-time killers are in jail now? What is the rate of violent offending by parolees during the periods two and five years after release?
How many parolees are currently on life parole - from the nonsense of a "life" sentence - for the second time? The answer to all these questions appears to be: "Who knows?"
From what I can ascertain, neither the Justice nor Corrections Departments keeps those figures. Whatever the reason, that is simply not good enough.
It is a fair bet that this time next year there will still be ongoing inquiries into Burton's case. Then we will have endless post mortems into the inquiries themselves.
An analysis of the figures to produce answers to the questions I have posed need not take anything like that long, and there are no issues of sub judice or imperilment of a fair trial for Burton for the two departments to hide behind as an excuse for not producing them.
Before we decide how to deal with the parole disaster - if indeed that is what it is - we need full knowledge of just how the system has been and is working, or not working. It shouldn't take a competent data matching computer programmer a month to come up with answers. If the figures put the present system in a good light, they should emerge even more quickly.
* David Garrett is an Auckland barrister.
