The full force of the law?

Winston Peters
Winston Peters
So-called  ``king-hit'' punches are back in the headlines after New Zealand First leader Winston Peters announced last week his party would make such an assault a specific criminal offence, with a minimum penalty of eight years' imprisonment if the victims are killed.

``King-hit'' or ``one-punch'' assaults are often random, unexpected and unprovoked and occur in a split-second. The violence is often fuelled by alcohol or drugs. Victims may be unknown to their assailants. Many literally don't see the attack coming and are therefore powerless to defend themselves.

The attacks have resulted in deaths or caused serious, sometimes life-changing, injuries. There has been outrage about the nature of the assaults, leading to a new label of a ``coward's punch''.

Sadly, people in Dunedin and the South have been among the victims of such mindless violence. It is a horrific legacy for families of the bereaved and injured, who may receive serious and permanent brain damage from the punch and/or from the ensuing fall to the ground - often concrete in the case of street assaults. Those ``lucky'' enough to survive may face years of rehabilitation. They may never fully recover. That is, of course, a further cost to society.

The 2011 death of a Dunedin man sparked the ``Just One Punch'' campaign, which highlighted the link with alcohol and such assaults and educated people to make better choices.

In Australia, a spike of one-punch attacks has prompted recent law changes, and those convicted of such assaults causing death can now face a maximum penalty of 20 years' jail.

Mr Peters' king-hit policy must be viewed with eyes wide open, however. This is already election season and the promises, baits, bribes and face-savers are coming in thick and fast: everything from more police, more houses and more affordable houses to less immigration and tax cuts. Crime and punishment is a favourite, and it is all too easy to promote policies which prey on fear and highlight retribution in order to make political mileage.

The jury is still out on the effectiveness of one-punch laws as a deterrent. Is our current legislation really not up to the task? There is undoubtedly debate around sentencing in some cases, but there are also serious questions over whether a one-size-fits-all hard-line approach is desirable. And, if attitudes towards alcohol and issues with anger are at the root of the problem, is such a policy anything more than an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff?

It is clear something needs to be done about alcohol-fuelled violence within our society. For years this newspaper has carried headlines which clearly show the prevalence of the problem, where nights out have resulted in bar fights and street brawls. Indeed, it sometimes seems this is the point of a night out for some.

We have also printed pleas from judges inundated with cases of alcohol-fuelled violent offending. ``When are we going to stop condoning it?'' Judge Kevin Phillips, in Queenstown, asked in 2013 when sentencing an offender. ``I just get appalled by young men acting in this violent way. Drunkenness is not an excuse and it certainly isn't a mitigating factor.''

Although a ``quick fix'' may be desirable, surely a holistic approach is more sustainable. Populist policy may tick the punishment box, but it doesn't address the cocktail of other factors driving these crimes: alcohol availability and price, our culture of excess and permissiveness, our ``hard-man'' image, our focus on rights over responsibilities, and our latent anger and aggression.

All must surely be part of the mix if we are to make a meaningful difference - and help save lives.

Add a Comment