Three Strikes is Government putting victims first
Since I announced the reintroduction of Three Strikes legislation last month, there have been a lot of opinions circulating. Depending on who you listen to, the new regime is either too harsh or doesn’t go far enough — which would indicate we have landed in the right place.
We listened to New Zealanders who told us they were concerned about law and order. They told us they want appropriate consequences for serious repeat violent and sexual offending, and the new regime provides that.
Our message to anyone who wants to avoid a lengthy prison sentence is simple and easy to understand: stop committing violent and sexual crimes.
Three Strikes is this Government putting victims first, and we make no apology about that.
Under the previous legislation, one of the issues which arose was the capture of lower-level offending, resulting in significantly disproportionate sentences. As a result, the original Three Strikes law wasn’t applied consistently, reducing its effectiveness.
Some critics of the proposed new regime have called for full reinstatement of the previous legislation, including for low-level offending. To simply return the Three Strikes of old is to risk a future government repealing the law.
Instead, we acknowledge some lessons learned from the previous law and have made changes to help the judiciary determine that it applies only to serious repeat violent and sexual offenders as the original legislation targeted.
Those serious repeat offenders will face no parole for their second strike and, for their third strike, they can expect the maximum sentence, also without parole.
The previous Three Strikes legislation applied on conviction, regardless of the sentence length or whether the offence was minor or serious. We intend to change this, so the new regime only applies to sentences of more than 24 months.
The intention is to limit the new Three Strikes regime to those targeted, serious repeat offenders, without capturing the lower-level offending.
The new Three Strikes regime will cover the same 40 offences as the previous legislation — those most violent and sexual offences with a maximum penalty of seven years or more — plus the new strangulation/suffocation offence.
We are proposing a reduction of up to 20 per cent below the mandatory sentence for a guilty plea at a third strike, and a similar reduction for murder sentences. This will mean offenders aren’t encouraged to go to trial solely on the basis that they have nothing to lose, creating undue stress and re-traumatising victims.
It is disappointing to see some commentators continue to focus on those who commit violent and sexual crimes ahead of the victims of these crimes. Again, I remind readers of our advice to those who wish to avoid a lengthy prison sentence — stop committing violent and sexual crimes.
The new Three Strikes regime is intended to be an enduring law. To see the true effectiveness of the regime, it will need to be place for several years. To receive strikes, offenders will need to receive increasingly lengthy sentences and serve these.
Approximate figures from the previous legislation saw around 14,000 offenders with one strike. Of those, less than 700 went on to incur two strikes, while around 25 received three strikes. Those thirdstrikers had, on average, 75 convictions each. If offenders like this are in jail serving full sentences, then they’re not in your community creating more victims.
These offenders are the people we promised our communities we would keep off the streets.
Submissions on the bill will be considered by Parliament through the select committee process. I encourage the public to take part in this and have their say.