The government this week delivered details on its promise to impose tougher consequences for crime. It has outlined changes to the Sentencing Act.
While the moves will increase the prison population, the effects in making New Zealand safer will be limited.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith estimates the reforms would add another 1400 to 1700 prisoners each year. The government aimed to reduce the prison population, but only after a decline in serious crime.
In the short term, keeping hardened offenders off the streets should have a positive impact, and there is public support for this. Also, psychopaths, a small subset, often require long-term incarceration.
There should be sympathy, too, for harsher sentencing for offences committed while on bail, in custody or on parole. Any assault on a prison officer, for example, should result in additional punishment.
"Tough on crime" policies appeal to the public’s fears and demand for punishment. The changes, as Mr Goldsmith said, will increase public confidence in the sentencing system to "denounce" offending. Whether it will "deter" crime, as claimed, remains questionable.
Various reforms will limit judges’ discretion. While it is true that judges come from a class distant from the realities of poverty, violence and crime, they build up lots of experience.
Judges often see offenders who, despite thoughtful sentences, repeatedly return to court. However, they also occasionally witness individuals breaking the cycle of criminal behaviour.
They are aware that jails are training grounds for criminals. It is best to keep offenders, especially younger ones, out as long as feasible.
This will become more difficult. Repeat discounts for remorse and for youth (18 to 25, recognising young brains are still developing) are to be eliminated. Sentencing discounts will also be capped at 40% unless sentencing outcomes would be manifestly unjust.
This is not to argue that "soft on crime" is effective either. There must be tiered consequences. There must be some deterrence.
But those high on drugs or alcohol are unlikely to consider the size of their possible jail term. Most people fail to weigh the pros and cons before committing offences. Deterrence is a limited part of the penal equation.
Interestingly, in the United States, slightly higher rates of recidivism have been associated with longer sentences, not the way deterrence should operate.
Rehabilitation should be a cornerstone of sentencing whenever possible. This is almost always difficult to achieve in a prison environment and when offenders are released into the milieu from where they came.
Rehabilitation recognises circumstances that make crime more likely — drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, social issues and economic opportunity. There is often a cocktail of influences, and each presents a challenge to ameliorate.
Society benefits when rehabilitation succeeds.
Crime was an election issue and remains prominent. The extent of violent crime is alarming, especially in the home where so much violence is incubated.
Public issues are reflected in planned "aggravating" factors, including offences against sole-charge workers and those with connected homes and businesses, aiding and abetting young people to offend and glorifying criminal activities via livestreaming or online posting.
Judges must also take into account victims’ interests, strengthening present provisions.
There is a sliding scale for sentence discounts for early guilty pleas, up to 25%. While the saving on costs and delays of unnecessary trials is to be lauded, the Supreme Court has raised questions about "unprincipled" motivations for admitting offences. Innocent accused might also plead guilty to avoid time in jail while on remand.
The changes are supposed to help ensure 20,000 fewer victims of violent crime by 2029 and reduce youth offending by 15%. That appears unlikely. Harsher sentences make little difference, and national and international culture and societal influences augur poorly for falls in violent crime.
