More time, and more parole

Tough talk on sentencing may not have been matched by criminals spending longer in jail, despite new laws introduced three years ago.

Labour's flagship law and order revamp - notably through the 2002 Sentencing Act and 2002 Parole Act - has introduced far longer jail and non-parole times for the very worst killers and criminals.

But it has also allowed most people sentenced to jail for two years or more to apply for parole after serving only one-third of their sentence.

Anyone jailed for two years or less is automatically released after one year.

That is a reduction on the old law, which said that most people were eligible for parole after serving half the jail term and automatically released after two-thirds of a sentence.

Justice Minister Phil Goff has hailed the new legislation as being tough on crime, and says figures already show more recidivist and serious offenders are jailed for longer.

Bulging prisons also indicate more people are detained, he said.

Mr Goff said there was nothing "soft" about present laws and his focus would now be on the causes of crime, and early intervention to stop youth offending.

Checks with the Justice Ministry and Parole Board all indicated it was too soon to know whether a person who committed a particular crime would spend more or less time in jail after the 2002 law changes.

Under the previous legislation, an offender sentenced to nine years' jail could apply for parole after 4 1/2 years, and would be released after six.

The new law means a person jailed for nine years - such as disgraced former Christian Heritage leader and paedophile Graham Capill - would be automatically considered for parole after just three years. But the law also means he could spend the full nine years in jail.

While the Parole Board is considering significantly more parole applications now than three years ago, indicating the one-third term applications are starting to be heard, early figures suggest a portion of first-time requests are being declined.

Otago University sentencing expert Associate Professor Geoff Hall told the Herald he did not believe the new regime could simply be categorised as tougher.

"It's anything but. There was always a minimum [non-parole] period before but now it's one-third, two-thirds. PD [preventive detention] used to be 10 years, now it's five.

"How many people in this country know that every sentence of two years or less is halved?"

Professor Hall said it was difficult to tell from statistics what was happening with sentencing and non-parole periods because the prison population had been jailed under different legislative regimes.

"A very small percentage are serving longer sentences, there's no doubt about it.

"But the rest of the population - the one-third eligibility for parole has meant, I'm sure, they are spending less [time]. Certainly they are eligible for parole earlier."

National's law and order spokesman, Tony Ryall, said opposition political parties were reflecting the public's view when they promised harsher sentences.

He said they would not be "banging on" about crime at every public meeting if it was not what people worried about.

National is one of four parties - with Act, United Future and New Zealand First - going into the election with promises to introduce even harsher prison sentences, generally centred on ensuring the most serious offenders spend significant time in prison.

Professor Hall said that was what the public wanted to hear but it was not possible simply to jail everyone for full terms without parole.