] NEWS: Security and safety must come first - Rt Hon John Key
News release

5 Comments
22 October 2008
NEWS: Security and safety must come first

National Party Leader John Key today announced further policy on parole, bail, and sentences for crime against children.

For National's Sentencing, Parole and Bail policy go to:

http://national.org.nz/files/2008/bail_sentencing_and_parole_policy.pdf


"I am concerned that under Labour's policy of saving prison beds, sentences like home detention and bail have become easier to get for the wrong people.

"Last year Labour changed the bail laws to make it easier for people to get bail, but too many offenders were already breaching their bail conditions, so we will reverse that change to make it harder to get bail.

"In 2006/07 more than 50% of the offenders on home detention had convictions for violent, sexual and drug offences, compared to 39% in 2001/02.

"Home detention should be available only to low-level offenders, so we will re-assess its appropriateness as a sentence for violent, sex, and drug offenders.

"These policies are driven by one concern above all others: the need to put public safety first.

"Sadly, such concern has not been at the forefront of Labour's decision-making in recent years – but National will change that."

Mr Key said National will also increase penalties for those who kill, abuse, or neglect children.

"I want to send the message that violence against children will not be tolerated.

"National will substantially increase penalties for people who cause the death of a child by manslaughter where there is a clear history of abuse or neglect.

"I am concerned that offenders who commit acts of violence and abuse against children often receive shorter sentences than if they had offended against adults.

"I was horrified to learn that the maximum sentence for assaulting a child is just two years – which is shorter than the three-year maximum sentence for wilfully ill-treating an animal.

"That is wrong and that will change.

"National will increase sentences for failure to provide the necessaries of life, child cruelty or wilful ill-treatment of a child, assault on a child, and wilful neglect, and we will direct the courts to specifically take into account the fact that the victim is a child when sentencing."

National will also give the courts the option of locking up the worst murderers for life without the possibility of parole where the most horrific offending has occurred.

National has previously announced a policy of no parole for the worst repeat violent offenders, but locking up the worst murderers without the possibility of parole will punish those who have not committed previous offences of this type but who have nonetheless been found guilty of heinous killings – such as double murderers Bruce Howse and Mark Lundy.

"This is something that neither the current life sentences nor preventive detention can provide, since they allow offenders to be paroled after a minimum period – in fact, Labour halved the minimum period for preventive detention from ten to five years, and five offenders have been paroled from preventive detention since 2002."

Mr Key also announced policies to:
• Improve checks and balances for parole by requiring prison managers to participate in parole hearings.
• Require police and probation staff to meet regularly about parolees.
• Help relieve pressure on district courts by increasing to $50,000 the limit at which disputes can be heard by the Disputes Tribunal.

For National's Sentencing, Parole and Bail policy go to:

http://national.org.nz/files/2008/bail_sentencing_and_parole_policy.pdf

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

#1 - Bill said:
2008-10-22 16:05 - (Reply)

Applying tighter release laws to current offenders would make me sleep better at night. ie permanent bail for violent and sex offenders after release - no tolerance for repeat offenses irrespective of the severity.

#1.1 - Jeff 2008-10-23 14:47 - (Reply)

Hi John Good start, there is however a gaping hole that is not being addressed, the immigration status of these offenders. Why are we not assertaining the offenders immigration status before sentencing? We pride ourselves on allowing people into NZ with good character, as a matter of fact, this is a requirement of immigration! You will kill 2 birds with one stone, firstly, deport the offender and if he is the principal applicant, them all that came with him/her!!!! and you ensure that more people will take -up citizenship. Let this be another deterent Jeff

#2 - Rae Russell 2008-10-22 16:13 - (Reply)

Good on you John, However you need to look at those getting off murder with a manslaughter charge. The classic case was last year when a poor 3 year old boy was beaten to death for soiling his pants. The offenders got 4 years non parole for manslaughter. It was a case of "we beat him with a baseball bat, but we did not mean to kill him your honour". The story of this boy was so sad, the boy was even trying to hide his mess by throwing it out the window as he knew what was coming to him. 4 years what a joke. Try to make your changes retrospective so you can deliver justice to those who have literally got away with murder. Perhaps a degrees of murder bill?

#3 - Paul Bebbington 2008-10-22 20:36 - (Reply)

Hi John Good to see some sensible sentencing and respect for the victims of crime. I live on the North Shore so we are used to being the safest city in NZ but South and West Auckland are areas that need to be brought into line so a more visible police presence (more recruits) is a good start. It's looking good for a victory in the election next month but your colleague Gerry Brownlee needs to rethink his approach on his attacks on energy efficient light bulbs. We do have to think about practical sustainability and the environment in the 21st century thats why the party has the 'Bluegreens'! I fear we are going to loss support due to the mixed message that National is protraying! As an Electrical Engineer, and the need to work smarter with resources especially in the current economic climate, energy efficient CFL's and efficient Halogen lamps are a positive step forward. Remember a traditional incandescent bulb only emits 10% light, the rest (90%) is wasted in heat! The Electricity Commission and MEPS should be worked with in a practical sense by the party. Keep up the good work, you certainly made Helen Clarke second rate and out of date in the broadcasted debate Paul

#4 - ken mcwatters 2008-11-18 18:29 - (Reply)

RH John Key, What about the wrongfully imprisoned ,where it is clear the charged is innosent from the witness saying it was not the person charged where all transcripts show the same, will you be as hard on the corrupt a plee below To whom it may concern There comes a time in your life when you hit a brick wall and you need to seek help from all avenues in the world. Well at this point in time I have hit a brick wall and I am seeking your advice as to what to do next. I have a son who has been wrongfully imprisoned in New Zealand and after 3 years of fighting the legal system to no avail, I don’t know what to do next. I was watching CI on TV and saw a documentary about how you help wrongfully imprisoned people and thought that at some stage God must have been listening to my pleas and put your show on at that point in time when I desperately needed someone to turn to. After giving up hope you have finally given me back the reason to keep fighting for my son. The justice system definitely got it wrong this time and no matter how hard we try we are getting nowhere. He was convicted for kidnapping and sexually abusing a minor. The evidence was contradicting and did not at all point to my son having committing this crime. Witness stood up in court verifying that he was somewhere else at the same time this girl was taken, people who do not even know my son, and other evidence such as the DNA which positively was identified as not being that of my son’s, descriptions of the offender that did not match my son, descriptions from the victim that clearly said it was not my son and yet he was convicted of all charges. At the start of the trial we had a lawyer who chose not to enter a lot of evidence because he said was incriminating to the case, later we found out that this was not true, it could have helped the case, and witness that were not called to give evidence for my son. Then we hired an appeal lawyer who said we had a strong case then when it went to the appeal’s court he said our case didn’t stack up. I don’t know what went wrong but it seems the justice system is against us. What do we do? I am a desperate mother who only wants to see justice done right and to have my son home. I am begging for your help. Please reply as we have transcripts that prove his innocence but know one will listen I wait in anticipation for your reply Maria Robertson


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

 
Submitted comments will be subject to moderation before being displayed.