Three-strikes law won't work, say critics

A sign language expert interprets for Louise Agnew (left) while Garth McVicar speaks, accompanied by Tai Hobson and Susan Couch. Photo / Mark Mitchell

The proposed three-strikes law has been manipulated to the point that it is no longer effective, the Sensible Sentencing Trust told MPs yesterday.

Trust chairman Garth McVicar said the five-year sentence that would be required to count as a "strike" was too high and would not capture enough offenders.

He cited the Government's assessment of the law's costs, which said the effect would not be felt for 10 years when a total of 25 prison beds would be needed for the extra prisoners sentenced under the policy.

"Whoop de do," said Mr McVicar.

He said the five-year threshold needed to be removed and any violent offence, no matter what the sentence should be counted as a strike.

He said repeat offenders could have up to 30 violent offences and not qualify under the bill in its current form.

"While purporting to be tough [this bill] is in fact a clever manipulation of words."

High-profile victims Susan Couch, Tai Hobson and Louise Agnew appeared with Mr McVicar before Parliament's law and order select committee to discuss the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill yesterday.

Ms Couch survived William Bell's attack at the Mt Wellington-Panmure RSA, and Mr Hobson's wife Mary was one of the three killed.

Mrs Agnew's deaf daughter Emma was killed by Liam Reid. Mrs Agnew is also deaf, and a sign language interpreter assisted her yesterday.

Mr McVicar said Bell and Reid would have been stopped before their killings by an "effective" three-strikes law. But the five-year threshold was so high that not even repeat violent offenders like Bell and Read would have been "struck out" and serving life sentences before their murders.

Professor Jennifer Walsh, a three-strikes expert from Azusa Pacific University in California, also said a strike should be based on the crime rather than the sentence.

She said basing it on sentencing eliminated the certainty of earning a strike for a crime, undermining the policy's effectiveness as a deterrent.