Editorial: Unrepentant crusader better in jail

According to the Department of Corrections, the key to home detention is the prisoner's commitment to rehabilitation. On that basis, there was never much chance that Lesley Martin would be able to serve her 15-month sentence for the attempted murder of her terminally ill mother at home. Duly, the Parole Board has denied Martin that option. The prospect of the euthanasia campaigner's rehabilitation was, it said, "unrealistic".

Thus ends another chapter of Martin's dismal dealings with the justice system. At every step she has miscalculated its range and reaction. Indeed, such is her obsession that she appears never to have given much thought to the consequences of her actions. Justice John Wild, in sentencing her to jail, went so far as to suggest that Martin regarded herself as above the law. That outlook seems to have endured even in the coldness of Arohata Women's Prison. Displaying all a martyr's egotism, she spoke of the inevitability of an outpouring of support or anger. Her plight, it appears, was to be the catalyst for the triumph of the voluntary euthanasia cause.

During her trial, Martin refused to countenance home detention. "I refuse to have my home be my prison," she said. In the end, pressure from her family and supporters led to a change of heart. This switch, however, seems to have been largely in the interests of her husband and two children. It was not a signal that she was willing to change.

Yet for home detention to be a possibility, Martin would have had to indicate just such a willingness. In the first instance, there would need to be an acknowledgment of her guilt under the present law - no matter how much she detests that law, and no matter how many in the community sympathise with her. Martin has declined to do that.

Nor has she indicated that rehabilitation would be tackled with any degree of seriousness. Given her influence, the Parole Board had no option but to conclude she posed an undue risk to the community while she stood by her earlier comment that she would do the same again, or help others do the same in the current legal environment. The board, quite correctly, drew a distinction between breaking the law and attempting to change it.

Martin's application for home detention will be reconsidered only if she makes two concessions. She will have to give her "unqualified acceptance" that she should not have broken the law. And she will have to promise not to undertake "any public or media activity" until her release date. Even the second condition should give the Parole Board reason for much thought. Martin's campaign for voluntary euthanasia has been built around a presence in all sectors of the media. This has become all-consuming, so much so that, against better advice, she went on television before her sentencing to ask people to protest outside police stations.

Activities of all varieties can, of course, be orchestrated far more easily from home than from jail. Indeed, on that count some offenders bar themselves automatically from consideration for home detention. Take the distributors of child sex-abuse images on the internet. The High Court at Tauranga has upheld the view that allowing such offenders to apply for home detention would be extraordinarily inappropriate. Martin's offending was, obviously, of a completely different character. But it is easy to see how her apparently unquenchable thirst for publicity - and the difficulty of policing that - would lead the Parole Board to question her suitability.

It seems pointless for Martin to pursue home detention. She has always craved martyrdom, and there is no reason to question her absolute commitment to the cause of voluntary euthanasia. Even if she were prepared to gag herself, she is not about to renounce a crusade for which she has significant support. In reality, however, home detention under its present rules was never an option.