A criminal justice expert says that reintroducing the three strikes law won't stop crime and will take power away from the justice system.
The comments come after the National Party said they would reinstate the policy following a spate of high-profile crimes in New Zealand, resulting in the death of Auckland worker Janak Patel last week.
ACT introduced the law in 2010 and National supported it while in government - it means after three offences, an offender had to be given the harshest penalty.
However, Labour repealed the law earlier this year, and AUT law dean Khylee Quince says its reintroduction won't work.
"There is no evidence that it has an impact on the number or nature of offences that people commit," Quince told Breakfast.
She said that during the 11 years that New Zealand had the policy, there was no change in crime rates across the country.
From June 2010, when the law was put in place, until September 2018, 10,433 first offenders appeared before the court, 338-second strikes and six third strikes; Quince said that while these numbers make it seem like the policy is working - they can be misleading.
She said that it led to other organisations not prosecuting offences as a strike.
"Fundamentally, what the three strikes law does, is take away discretion from judges and put it in the hands of Parliament. Parliament decides, through the law, that once you've been convicted of these offences within the statute, then you are going to get this kind of penalty," Quince said.
"By taking away discretion from judges, it puts pressure on other actors of the criminal justice system to make decisions that try to even up the unjustness of the law.
"Police and the crown, knowing this was an unjust and unfair law, would look at the schedule of offences that would qualify you for a second strike and charge someone with a lower offence," she said.
Quince highlighted that a judge's job is to assess all offences before the court and decide on the fairest penalty based on the offence's nature and the offender's circumstances - she says the law will take this power away.
"Parliament sets the maximum boundaries of sentences, and then a judge gets to hear from the lawyer, they get to hear from experts whether they be medical people, psychiatrists or psychologists, from the whānau and sometimes from the offender themselves.
"The problem with the three strikes law is that judges have very little discretion."
She said judges need to be able to consider all aspects of an offence before sentencing, like how violent it was and how dangerous it was to the public. Circumstances of the offender, like mental illness, whether they plead guilty or know they need support, are also considered - Quince said taking this ability makes the system "unfair" for second or third offenders.
Quince also said the policy is expensive, costing the taxpayer over $100,000 per prisoner.
"National and Act want to reinstate three strikes, which seems to fly in the face of their other narrative about following the evidence and social reinvestment."
National Party leader Christopher Luxon told Breakfast that the law targets the most serious offenders and won't be in place for everyone who goes through the justice system.
He said offenders need to face the consequences for their actions.
"Three strikes is designed for very serious and dangerous criminals, often of a violent and sexual nature of crime," he said.
"What we're saying is we want those people off the streets; it's not fair that they can have repeat offences - we want maximum offences for those types of crimes."
Luxon rejected claims that evidence shows the policy doesn't work, saying there wasn't proof that it wasn't working or working either way.
"My point's a different one; it's that you have to have that kind of call of serious, violent criminal activity; there's got to be some kind of deterrent," he said.
SHARE ME