KEY POINTS:
Media coverage of the murder of Liam Ashley, quite properly, focused on the victim, and the terrible failures which led to him being in a cage with his killer.
Other than his direct involvement in this dreadful crime, the killer and his wider picture have been somewhat overlooked.
Charlie George Baker - imprisoned for at least 18 years for the murder - epitomises all that is wrong with our legal and penal system.
For a start, it may be argued that prison is not the proper place for him, or at least it is not where he should have ended up.
Although no insanity defence was offered - indeed Baker pleaded guilty, presumably after his counsel considered carefully what defences were available - Baker is said to have spent time in "psychiatric care".
What that means in our brave new world, where most major psychiatric institutions have been closed, is anyone's guess.
We know Baker has a long list of previous convictions, many of them for serious violent offences.
Leaving aside his psychiatric history, if our legal system was properly designed to deal with habitual violent offenders, he would never have been in a position to murder Liam Ashley - or anyone else.
The "three strikes and you're out" system adopted by many American states has been much criticised by liberal commentators in this country, sometimes with good reason.
But as is commonly the case when looking at the American legal and penal system, it is the detail which is worthy of condemnation, not the idea itself.
Unlike New Zealand, most American states have "misdemeanour" and "felony" offences.
In "three strikes" states, a felon is liable for indefinite imprisonment on his conviction for a third felony offence.
The problem is that some "felony" offences can be extremely minor, giving rise to emotive stories about life imprisonment for stealing a chocolate bar. Such stories don't usually mention the 100 previous felony offences.
It clearly cannot be just to imprison someone for life for stealing a chocolate bar, and that is not a system any sensible person would advocate here.
The "fix", however, is simple and obvious: a New Zealand "three strikes" system, in which a "strike" is defined not as a felony, but an offence of violence carrying a sentence of two or more years in prison.
If we had a system like that, Liam Ashley and countless other victims would be alive today.
William Bell, the killer of Tai Hobson's wife and two other people at the Panmure RSA in 2001, had 108 previous convictions, many for serious violence. Paul Bailey, the killer of Kylie Smith, had numerous previous convictions for violent offences, and was on bail for a rape - which he later admitted - when he killed Kylie.
The Justice and Corrections departments are wary about releasing statistics which show them in a bad light, but I will hazard a guess that our murder rate would be about half what it is now if every killer who had previously committed three serious violent crimes had been sentenced to preventive detention before the murder for which he is now serving "life".
The downside to such a suggested change to our system is that we would need more prisons.
My response to that is, "So what?"
Internationally recognised commentators have observed that we have become a very violent society.
Of course, we need to address the root causes of that - as soon as someone can definitively work out just what they are.
In the meantime, we need to rid the streets of the Charlie George Bakers and the William Dwayne Bells before they kill someone, not after.
A sensible, well-designed New Zealand version of "three strikes and you're out" would achieve that.
* David Garrett is an Auckland barrister.
