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

Mouseover links or blue arrows above for full page descriptions

ACT supports ‘life meaning life’ because it has has always been committed to truth in sentencing. But for ACT sentencing reform is most needed at the entry level of crime, where life patterns of offending are being formed.

For 30 years our justice establishment has put us all through an experiment with the theory that if we are all just nice enough to criminals for long enough, one day they will decide to be nice back. ACT rejects this as loopy. Success overseas shows that certainty of consequence is what cuts crime and restores community safety. That means judges must stop giving repeat offenders third 5th, 10th even 20th "second chances".

ACT will introduce the Kiwi version of "three strikes and you're out" that is the maximum sentence after three repeat offences, automatically.

Link to this policy here

2) End current parole system and introduce ongoing supervision upon release as determined by a judge for all repeat violent offenders and sex offenders?

Yes

Comment

Since 2000 it has been ACT policy to end parole for all offenders so that the sentence given is the sentence served. There will be supervision instead of parole after every prison sentence, with electronic monitoring of work and family and reparation responsibilities. Supervision will be for reintegration periods picked by a judge, with resentencing for breach of conditions.

Link to this policy here

3) Compulsory DNA testing upon conviction for Crimes Act crimes?

Yes

Comment

Since 2001 ACT has regarded DNA testing as the modern fingerprint, and it should be used in the same way, eg. on arrest if police deem appropriate. We would not require the police to DNA test where they did not think that was a sensible use of resources.

Link to this policy here

4) Victims before criminals-true restitution and reparation for victims by criminals, plus real support for victims?

Yes

Comment

ACT moved Sentencing Act amendments to try to ensure that judges were not obliged to take into account meaningless promises, and prepared provisions stipulating that Courts should expect reparation and remorse, and that instead of discounts for them, sentences should be higher in the absence of them.

ACT also supports restorative justice where the victim wants that. ACT moved Sentencing Act amendments to try to ensure that judges could enforce the agreements reached at restorative justice conferences, and that probation officers had power to supervise performance.

ACT has set out its reasons because this question is so vague that any party could say yes, claiming that they need not do anything more than the law currently provides.

Link to this policy here

5) Provide preventive detention by way of secure confinement for criminally insane or criminals with diagnosed mental illness?

Not answered

Comment

ACT can not say yes or no because the question is too confused. Presumably the first part of the question relates to criminals who would be in prison if they were not insane, though it does not say that. Preventive detention is the term that refers to open ended custody. It should be restricted to those who are dangerous, but the question does not do that.

Act would say yes to the first part of the question if those presumptions are correct, but to publish a yes without clarifying the question would be misleading because it would imply more than ACT could support.

The second part draws no distinction between commonly diagnosed mental illnesses that are not dangerous to the public, or which do not require confinement in a specialised institution, and those which require confinement. It could even imply that people who might otherwise be fined should be locked up if they have mental illnesses, whether for their own benefit, or for the public's protection it is not clear.

It is not clear whether the secure confinement mentioned is satisfied by prison, or whether the question contemplates psychiatric institution confinement.

The ACT Health spokesman Heather Roy has urged the rebuilding of substantial custodial psychiatric facilities and an end to the theories that "the community" will care for people who are a danger to themselves or others.

The ACT Justice spokesman Stephen Franks has long argued that the difference between mad and bad in the case of dangerous offenders should be far less significant. He considers that it should become irrelevant in practice with a verdict of "guilty but insane" and an expectation that any offender who benefits from that verdict will not be released before the time they would have been released from prison.

6) Amend legislation to ensure that any future prisoner compensation be paid direct to victims or a consolidated victim fund?

Yes

Comment

ACT assumes that the question relates to compensation for alleged human rights breaches, which we took a lead in opposing. ACT’s policy is to end prisoner entitlements to windfall compensation for alleged Human Rights Act breaches, so paying it direct to victims or a victim fund is very much second-best, and assumes some victim fund law that could become a new gravy train..

7) Reduce the age of criminal responsibility under the Crimes Act?

Yes

Comment

Act has a comprehensive youth justice policy . It includes ending pointless family group conferences, ensuring youth justice processes result in enforceable decisions, making young offenders responsible and deterring re-offending, no legal interference with schools upholding high behaviour standards, and ending the suppression of youth justice criminal records to restore concern about family reputation as an incentive. See also articles here and here.

8) Victims to have true input into sentencing and parole?

Yes

Comment

ACT believes victims should have full party status in court, and be able to argue the appropriate sentence. Judges should ask for victims views on sentencing, so they can do more than write sad accounts of how badly they've been hurt. Because we believe that parole should be abolished the second part of the question is irrelevant to our policy, but we would give victims a veto on parole, if it is continued.

To ACT the question could be unrevealing in that other parties will claim that victims already have "true input", when in reality that is confined to complaining about how badly they have been hurt.

Link to this policy here

9) Abolish concurrent sentencing for all crimes under the Crimes Act with particular emphasis on violent and sex offenders?

Yes

Comment

ACT believes that every material offence should result in extra punishment, but this question is puzzling. Concurrent sentencing is either abolished or it is not. How does an abolition place particular emphasis on violent and sex offenders, when it applies to all?

Link to this policy here

10) Introduce the concept of consequences in prison, with focus to be placed on job training, education and work skills?

Yes

Comment

ACT presumes that the phrase "the concept of consequences" means clear and practical rewards and punishments for good and bad behaviour. This will require restoring more discretion to prison officers so that they can encourage and discourage without the paper war burden of formal disciplinary proceedings.

To be meaningful any party claiming commitment to more training education and work skills should show how they will overcome the current obstacles. Parties which do not support restoring on the spot discretions to prison managers should be regarded as suspect. The obstacles to more meaningful work in prisons include the risks of using tools (assault and escape), insufficient guard capacity, and competition with the private sector in "in-house on-the-job training".