escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links for full page descriptions

Media Articles Judges, Courts and Justice

JUDGES, COURTS AND JUSTICE

This was sent out for publication on the 9th February 2004

The Sensible Sentencing Trust congratulates Judges who give sensible sentences and we castigate those who don't.

Why does one Judge sentence a criminal to 11 years jail for the kidnapping of a child who was returned unharmed and yet another Judge gives a ridiculous 3 year sentence for the brutal killing of a 3 year old toddler?

As New Zealand's violent crime statistics continue to escalate I often ask myself "why is there such a reluctance by Judges to impose tougher sentences? Are they deaf to the public outcry or could it be they fear their verdicts will be overturned on appeal? Do too many appeals look bad on their record? Or maybe the Court of Appeal is out of touch with the demands of society?

I recently read an article where the Court of Appeal had ruled that tougher sentencing guidelines for child-killers would not be imposed, despite a well-researched and well-documented submission from retired Justice Ted Thomas. The Court had declined applications by solicitor-general Terrence Arnold to set a 10-year minimum sentencing guideline for people convicted of manslaughter of children and for those who kill people after they have armed themselves.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust believe that Judges and the Courts have been delegated the task of sentencing by the community and that the expectations of the community should be taken into account. Judges should not ignore the community they live in and Courts should recognize and respond to the widespread level of public concern.

If sentences do not meet public expectations, confidence in the administration of justice will diminish. To adhere to sentencing levels set in the past is to adhere to community expectations of the past. The Judiciary seems to be out of step with expectations of the public and is failing to recognize the level of public concern at hopelessly inadequate sentencing in many cases. How many times must a criminal offend before we throw away the key? Is it 50, 100 or 200 offences? Under existing legislation there is no limit, past and present government philosophy has been to continue recycling these criminals until they die or reach an age that they simply stop offending. How many victims and how many crimes is irrelevant.

Under legislation introduced by this Government a Judge must now impose the least restrictive sentence appropriate in the circumstances. The Sensible Sentencing Trust believe that criminals who have repeatedly engaged in serious or violent criminal behavior and who have not responded to conventional rehabilitation must be isolated from society to protect public safety.

What the community expects is that the judiciary be accountable to the wider community for its decisions, which must reflect the abhorrence of the crime. For too long the judiciary have been allowed to live in an ivory tower. All too often it has failed to consider the impact of crimes on victims and their families. There will be those in the judiciary who resent the fact that the public is knocking on the door of their ivory tower, but the knocking will not stop until sentences are seen to more adequately reflect the crime.

A recent Law Commission report stated "The courts seem to be run for the convenience of those who work in the system, rather than those who use it".