Dialogue: Witch-hunts will never make us safe

By TRUDIE McCONNOCHIE*

Deciding whether to participate in last Wednesday's Queen St march organised by the Sensible Sentencing Trust was easy. It was as easy, I imagine, as it is for middle New Zealand to disregard the tougher sentencing debate as being about vengeance and righteousness.

If you have been lucky enough never to have been affected by violent crime, you could be forgiven for writing off the whole tough sentencing movement as a witch-hunt. After all, the only voices getting air time or column space are the ones screaming for blood.

I support truth in sentencing for dealing with violent criminals who pose a threat to community safety. But the vociferous group who are trying to frighten us all into joining their crusade are undermining that cause. There must be reason in a debate that is now dominated by temper-tainted outbursts and unproductive demonstrations.

Today would have been Kylie Jones' 25th birthday. Kylie's is a name that people can only now ever know as another victim of recidivist offending. I worked with her at a magazine in 2000, and before she was killed I had not given the issue of tougher sentencing much thought. Indeed, I voted "No" in the 1992 law and order referendum because of the emphasis on punishment rather than rehabilitation.

How easy it is to adopt a head-in-the-sand philosophy about crime until you are personally affected; the blind faith that it will never happen to me is so comfortable.

But being aware of how at risk we all are does not mean jumping onto the eye-for-an-eye bandwagon. I cannot see how engaging in a witch-hunt will convince the public, much less the Government, that the community's safety is compromised by releasing recidivist offenders, and that is why I did not take part in the rally.

Perhaps it gave others who have lost someone through a violent crime, or who have themselves been victims, an opportunity to express their anger. But, interestingly, many of the members of this media-happy movement are not themselves victims or associated with victims. That makes the force of their overwhelming rage - not that I am questioning their motives - more than a little frightening.

What did the rally achieve? I suspect it probably vindicated the feeling of most New Zealanders (feelings that I would have had before 2000) that the call for truth in sentencing is simply about a disorderly, fuming juggernaut of rednecks entrenched in their sense of self-righteousness and seeking vengeance.

But knee-jerk persecution is not going to advance the cause, that is, securing community safety. Instead, it undermines its own virtue. I cannot see how politicians, let alone Joe Public, would want to align themselves with such bitter fervour (except, of course, those chasing votes).

Let's be clear about what we as a community need. Truth in sentencing is about making us all safer; it is not about locking away everyone who so much as shoplifts and throwing away the key. It is not about bringing in the death penalty.

It is about preventing the release of those unsound, violent criminals to whom human life has no value. They are guaranteed to offend again because of their psychological disposition and, in fact, some overseas countries have found psychological testing successful in determining this. Rehabilitation is impossible.

Taffy Hotene, who killed Kylie Jones, is one such offender. He had been automatically released on parole after serving two-thirds of his sentence, time he was serving for raping a Wanganui woman. The Parole Board at the time had serious concerns about the likelihood he would reoffend but could do nothing.

Though the Sentencing and Parole Bill, which came into effect at the start of this month, has removed the automatic two-thirds parole provision, that clause has been replaced by the right for prisoners to apply for parole after just one-third.

In this instance parole is not automatic, but the onus is still on the state to prove that offenders should be released, rather than on the offenders to show they can be trusted. It seems the offenders' interests are still paramount, while the victims and their friends and families go on to serve a real life sentence.

But most disturbingly, this legislation does not apply retrospectively. That means that our worst offenders behind bars, such as Hotene, will probably be on the streets again after serving only two-thirds of their sentences.

When you consider the nature of these dangerous criminals, the adage about hating the sin but forgiving the sinner falls well short. For a start, wanting to ensure these violent prisoners are never released is not about punishment, it is about community safety. And the sinner cannot be forgiven; the sinner does not even know what he has done is wrong. That is why he will do it again.

That renders the zero-tolerance message well off the mark. Similarly, the life-for-a-life policy is flawed. It will not deter would-be criminals, it does not consign those convicted to any state of remorse or repentance and it certainly serves no restorative purpose for the victim or community.

Ultimately, a life for a life is about wanting blood; it is not about sending no-tolerance messages to criminals. How can it when most experts admit deterrence is a myth?

Such a policy relies too much on the abilities of individuals to consider rationally the consequences of their crimes before they commit them. But psychologists say people do not generally consider consequences when they act, and usually that is because they do not believe what they are doing is wrong.

Of course, truth in sentencing is merely providing the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. Ideally, the Government should be solving the social problems that are locking offenders into a life of crime. But while the academics debate how to break that cycle, we are all at risk of becoming the next name to be linked in national headlines with recidivist offending.

At the heart of the need for truth in sentencing we are talking about an issue that is born of the fundamental human need for security. So emotion goes with the territory.

Anyone has the right to be angry about violent crime - the types of crimes we have seen on the evening news are abhorrent to us all. But that anger is nothing compared with the trauma every victim's family undergo every time a loved one's name is bandied about by these crusaders as if vindication for their fury.

We all seek the same state of security, but some of those fighting for tougher sentences trade so heavily on rage that they are masking the real issues. Consequently, they foster apathy among the very people they seek to unite.

This is frustrating to say the least, because the lack of community safety is not a problem we can afford to ignore.

* Trudie McConnochie is an Auckland writer.

Full news coverage:
nzherald.co.nz/election

Election links:
The parties, policies, voting information, and more

Ask a politician:
Send us a question, on any topic, addressed to any party leader. We'll choose the best questions to put to the leaders, and publish the answers in our election coverage.