Dialogue: Sentencing and parole plan a sensible response to crime

PHIL GOFF says that, contrary to criticism, new Government legislation will ensure serious violent offenders spend a long time behind bars.

The Sentencing and Parole Bill I introduced this month has won widespread support from groups campaigning for more effective criminal law.

Predictably, the Opposition has criticised the legislation, notwithstanding the fact that for nine years it failed to respond decisively to criminal offending.

Criticism is healthy in a democracy, but the comments by National's justice spokesman, Dr Wayne Mapp, in a recent Dialogue article, were inaccurate and misleading.

The new law most certainly will be tougher on serious recidivist criminals who pose a risk to society. The bottom line is that $90 million extra over four years will be invested in keeping dangerous offenders behind bars. This will increase the overall prison population by around 300.

Longer-term, the real answer to crime is to tackle its causes by measures effective at stopping young people from becoming criminals.

But for a hard core of serious offenders for whom it is too late, the only way of protecting society is by taking them out of the community.

People who pose a serious risk will no longer have to be released at two-thirds of their sentence as they are now. They will serve their full sentence.

Those who commit murder with serious aggravating factors will serve a minimum sentence of at least 17 years in prison and probably longer. The current minimum sentence is 10 years.

A clear guideline will go into the law instructing judges that for the most serious crimes of their type, close to the maximum sentence under the law should be imposed.

A new and more professional parole board will be established for which the paramount consideration will be the protection of society. The new structure will provide for more consistent decision-making.

Penalties for breach of parole are being extended from three months to one year in prison. Also, the regularity of hearings once an inmate becomes eligible for parole will be extended. A person who has no case for parole may have to wait two to three years for the next hearing rather than being heard annually, as is now the case.

The new law will provide for common sense and flexibility.

Where there are strong and exceptional mitigating factors in cases of murder, such as a mercy killing or a killing in response to years of proven torment and abuse, a judge will be able to sentence the defendant to less than a 10-year minimum term.

Where offenders clearly pose no risk to society and, for example, show remorse and have overcome a problem such as drug addiction which may have led to their offending, they will be able to be considered for release on parole after serving a third of their sentence.

It doesn't make sense to keep people locked up at great expense to the taxpayer where it serves no purpose.

But eligibility for parole does not automatically mean the granting of parole. That decision will be made by the new parole board, taking fully into account whether there is any risk to the community and the circumstances which might justify considering an inmate for early release.

By contrast, the harshest penalty available - preventive detention, which allows indefinite imprisonment where that is justified - will, under the new law, apply to a wide range of serious violent and sexual offenders, and from the age of 18.

Suspended sentences, described by Dr Mapp as a "useful tool", in fact have been a failure - which National itself acknowledged before it lost office.

Suspended sentences were not a deterrent. In many cases, they resulted in people being imprisoned when fines, reparation or community sentences would have been more effective and less expensive to the taxpayer.

In other cases, imprisonment or, at least, home detention, make more sense for offenders because suspended sentences provide no control over those who will almost certainly continue to offend.

Corrective training has also been dumped. The so-called boot camps resulted in a more than 94 per cent reoffending rate.

One of the best things about the new legislation is that it is victim-centred. It puts greater emphasis on reparations. It extends the right of victims to be heard at sentencing and parole.

The Sentencing and Parole Bill takes account of restorative justice processes.

In all cases where reparation is payable, the judge will have to give reasons if he or she decides not to award reparation to the victim.

This legislation responds to the 92 per cent of New Zealanders who expressed concern about inadequacy of the criminal law in the 1999 referendum. After years of National doing nothing, Dr Mapp should now use his position on the select committee considering the bill constructively, rather than putting forward knee-jerk and inaccurate criticisms.

* Phil Goff is the Minister of Justice.