KEY POINTS:
In the lead-up to the last general election, Don Brash, then the National Party leader, proposed that parole should be scrapped for all except first-time, low-level, non-violent criminals. Doubtless, he imagined this would resonate with those tired of the supposedly lenient treatment of hardened offenders. He was wrong.
Partly he was unlucky; high-profile cases of brutal crime were scarce then. Equally, however, the policy was widely seen as too extreme. Dr Brash's successor has not been more moderate, and he is far more fortunate in his timing. But his approach springs from the same failed "lock them up and throw away the key" school.
John Key says a National government would put some murderers behind bars for life. Anyone convicted of murder who had previously received a prison sentence of five years or more for violence would be denied any opportunity for parole. That would mean the likes of RSA triple-killer William Bell would spend the rest of their lives in prison.
Additionally, there would be no parole for criminals convicted a second time of any violent offence attracting a prison sentence of more than five years. That would capture the likes of attempted murder, kidnapping, sexual violation and aggravated burglary. Mr Key says this would add a further 572 offenders to the prison population by 2011, necessitating the spending of $315 million on a new prison.
National's problem is that it has had to come up with something extremely eye-catching if it wants to outflank Labour on this issue. The Government has already toughened parole and sentencing laws. Judges, for example, can impose preventive detention, a jail sentence with no release date set. But, while seeking greater protection for the community, the Government has stopped short of removing prisoners' incentives for rehabilitation. This, effectively, is what the National policy does.
In the case of some murderers, life would mean life. Society would be safer. But for repeat violent offenders, release from prison would merely be delayed. And when freedom was granted, there would be little prospect of such offenders responding in the best manner. With no prospect of parole, there would have been no reason for them to behave well in prison, to change their outlook, or to improve themselves.
Probably, they would simply have become more bitter and more violent. Indeed, the rate of recidivism is higher for those who serve their full sentence in prison than for those who have the benefit of parole.
More fundamentally, National's policy is simply a more extreme version of a policy that has failed this country and others, none more so than the United States. The number of New Zealanders behind bars has risen sharply in the past decade, and four new prisons have had to be built. This, however, has had no impact on the crime rate.
Putting away offenders for much longer terms does not change that rate. Yet a tougher version of just that approach, with the added expense of an increasing number of prisons, is exactly what National proposes.
In all likelihood, this is not something that Mr Key will pursue if National wins the election. It is a policy calculated to strike a chord with those who despair of violent crime and particularly horrific murders. As such, it may capture the public's attention. It can then be put quietly to one side as a more cogent, more flexible approach to sentencing and parole is adopted.
This will strike a better balance of punishing offenders, protecting society from those who continue to represent too great a risk, and providing incentives for rehabilitation.
