Striking a balance

The first inmate to be sentenced on third-strikes was not the person expected to be punished by the law which says offenders must be sentenced to the maximum prison term without parole.

Raven Casey Campbell pinched the bottom of a prison guard while serving a sentence of three years and four months and was convicted of indecent assault. Previously, Campbell (25) had received strike warnings for his first set of offending, which included receiving stolen property, possessing a knife, robbery and demanding to steal. He received a second-strike warning after committing aggravated robbery.

The three-strikes law is an Act New Zealand-introduced piece of legislation designed to deter offenders. However, while the number of second-strike offenders is rising, questions remain about whether the law is much of a deterrent.

Justice Kit Toogood said he had no option but to sentence Campbell to the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence — seven years’ imprisonment. Justice Toogood said the sentence was harsh given what Campbell did was not the most serious assault of its type.

Parliament determined the history of Campbell’s violent offending required a very stern response to protect the public from him and to act as a deterrent to Campbell and others.

The judge went on to say if he was not required to sentence Campbell to the maximum term of seven years, it was likely he would have been sentenced to 12 months. Campbell can still apply for parole once a third of the seven-year term has passed. There are two very distinct camps in New Zealand about the three-strikes legislation. Those supporting the law believe Campbell made his own decision and now faces the consequences of his actions. The "lock them up and throw away the key" mentality plays a strong part in New Zealand society and is one of the reasons the Government is facing building more prisons, not closing existing ones down as promised.

The conservative part of society will see the Campbell case as an example of the law working in a difficult case. Having a safety valve preventing Campbell from serving the actual seven years is how the law is intended to work. Three strikes has brought the balance back to what the public think of as being reasonable punishment.

The more liberal part of New Zealand believes the law is not the best outcome for offenders and over-punishes offenders like Campbell who they see at the lower end of the scale when it comes to offending.

One of the major concerns in past years, which seems to have gone unnoticed this year, is judges allowing violent offenders out on bail only to see them offend at the top end of the scale when out of custody. The judiciary has come in for criticism for the perceived bleeding heart attitude towards offenders rather than the protection of the victims.

The three-strikes legislation has been in operation since 2010 and is now being called ill-considered and of needing revision.

Looking back, a convicted murder was sentenced to life in prison with a non-parole period of 12 years because a judge ruled it would have been manifestly unjust for the offender to not be eligible for parole — even though it was a third-strike offence.

Quite rightly, Parliament sets the law and the judges get to interpret it. But it appears some of the interpretation is not what was expected when the three-strikes legislation was introduced.

A sensible middle ground is needed. Victims need to be protected, offenders need punishment and judges need to be able to act in the best interests of the wider community. If the law is an ass, it needs to be reviewed and rewritten — not continued with in its current form.