This is a part of No Pride in Prisons’ Abolitionist demands. These demands were originally published as a book. To see a pdf of the book, click here. To buy a copy, please email info@noprideinprisons.org.nz
On 1 June 2010, New Zealand Parliament passed an amendment to the Sentencing Act 2002, bringing into force what is colloquially termed ‘three strikes’ legislation.[1] This new rule applies to the 40 different offences classed as ‘serious violent offences,’ and each ‘strike’ refers to a conviction for one of those specified crimes.[2]
According to the legislation, upon receiving a first strike, the court judge must warn the convicted person of the consequences if they are to receive a second strike.[3] If somebody receives a second strike (for an offence other than murder), that person must serve the full term of their imprisonment without parole, and must be given a final warning by the presiding judge.[4] If a third strike is received, then that person must serve the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence at hand.[5] This sentence must be served without parole, unless the court finds that it would be ‘manifestly unjust’ for parole to be denied.[6] If a person receives a second or third strike on a charge of murder, they must be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, unless the court finds that denial of parole would be manifestly unjust.[7]
In a “five years on”[8] lecture evaluating the efficacy of New Zealand’s three-strikes legislation, Dr Warren Brookbanks LLD argued that although this legislation is “significantly less harsh than its Californian counterpart,” it is questionable whether the three-strikes approach is achieving the outcomes that its advocates call for.[9] Those outcomes include, perhaps most significantly, the effect of deterring people from committing the crimes subject to three-strikes law. In a report on the issue of deterrence, the Victoria Sentencing Advisory Council found that while the threat of incarceration may create a minor general effect of deterrence, increasing the severity of punishment does not result in an increase in deterrence.[10] Therefore the function of three-strikes legislation, that is, increasing the severity of penalties for particular crimes, does not deter people from committing those crimes.
With the evidence pointing to increased penalties having no significant deterrent effect, Dr Brookbanks expressed concern that New Zealand’s three-strikes legislation may have been passed by way of ‘penal populism,’ a method through which “politicians serve their own ends by tapping into the public’s punitive sentiments.”[11] The three-strikes law, achieved by way of political manipulation and ultimately failing to result in the deterrence it is supposed to, must be repealed immediately. Without deterrence as justification, there is no reason for this alarmingly punitive initiative to remain a part of New Zealand law.
[1]Sentencing Act 2002.
[2]Sentencing Act 2002 s 86A.
[3]Sentencing Act 2002 s 86B.
[4]Sentencing Act 2002 s 86C.
[5]Sentencing Act 2002 s 86D.
[6]Sentencing Act 2002 s 86D(3).
[7]Sentencing Act 2002 s 86E.
[8] Dr Warren Brookbanks LLD, “Three Strikes – Five Years On,” (Lecture, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, September 30, 2015), 1.
[9] Sensible Sentencing Trust, “Three Strikes,” Sensible Sentencing Trust, 21 March 2016. http://sst.org.nz/our-aims/sst-three-strikes-policy/.
[10] Donald Ritchie, Does Imprisonment Deter? A Review of the Evidence, (Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2011), 12. https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Does%20Imprisonment%20Deter%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20Evidence.pdf.
[11] Dr Warren Brookbanks LLD, “Three Strikes – Five Years On,” (Lecture, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, September 30, 2015), 2.