Protecting the public

New measures to keep dangerous criminals locked up for longer - and to better protect victims - will soon come into force.

The Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill was passed in Parliament last week with a high level of cross-party support.

(The Green Party opposed the Bill, saying it did so because of its commitment to restorative justice and human rights.)

The legislation has been a long time coming, starting in 2012 when it passed its first reading.

The Bill enables the High Court to make a public protection order to detain high-risk individuals until they no longer pose a serious and imminent threat to public safety.

Individuals subject to the public protection orders will live in a residence on prison grounds, separate from the main buildings but with a secure perimeter.

One of the top election issues, in normal times, is law and order.

In this year's election, outspoken Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar resigned to stand for Parliament for the Conservative Party, which failed to pass the 5% threshold or win an electorate.

Mr McVicar has long argued that New Zealand's court system is too lenient on offenders. While some people agree, many others do not.

However, there is no doubt high-profile incidences of people reoffending violently while on bail or parole alarms the wider community.

Harsher justice is a touchstone for many people, despite New Zealand already having a high and growing prison population.

Despite serving prison terms, some dangerous offenders reoffend once they have been released.

The new measures are designed to allow authorities to more effectively deal with those people deemed to pose a serious threat to the community.

Justice Minister Amy Adams says the passing of the Bill means a greater assurance of safety from the harm posed by the worst offenders.

Not surprisingly, Corrections Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-Iga welcomed its passing.

He was publicly embarrassed by the escape of convicted killer and child molester Phillip John Smith, who was arrested in Rio de Janeiro on November 13, a week after fleeing New Zealand while on temporary release from Spring Hill Corrections Facility in South Auckland.

Mr Lotu-Iga is new to his job but made a mess of dealing with the volatile situation.

This was no folklore story such as those associated with the escapades of, say, George Wilder, a burglar in the 1960s who left apology and thank-you notes for his victims.

Wilder, who had a song written about him, was on the run for 65 days before his capture.

No, Smith is a dangerous killer and paedophile who walked out of prison and on to a plane to South America.

The Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment extends supervision orders for child sex offenders beyond their current maximum 10-year limit for those who pose a high risk of serious reoffending.

The orders will also be extended to include the management of high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high risk violent offenders.

The two pieces of legislation are part of the Government's programme of law and order reform which ministers say strikes the right balance between protecting the public from serious sexual and violent harm, and the rights of offenders once a prison sentence is complete.

There will always be those who condemn stronger measures to contain offenders, citing human rights and restorative justice.

And rehabilitation must be a main priority of our justice system.

Compassion and understanding have very real parts to play in turning around the lives of offenders.

Sadly, however, not every wrongdoer is willing to engage with restorative justice. Some - albeit a small number - have no desire to change.

Still others will continue to pose a danger to the public for as long as they live.

The Government is attempting to strike the right balance between protecting the public and ensuring the most dangerous members of society are partitioned from those they seek to harm.

But the real test, and this will not be an easy one to complete, will be the willingness of government agencies to enforce the two new Acts.

Recently, the record of such agencies has been less than exemplary.

Add a Comment