Three Strike Law

The Attorney-General is likely to advise Parliament that the proposed three strikes law is "apparent inconsistency" with the section of the Bill of Rights protecting New Zealanders against cruel, degrading or "disproportionately severe" punishment.

One of the concerns is that some of the crimes included in the bill are punishable by terms of imprisonment as low as a maximum five years - meaning the minimum term for a third strike on some crimes is 500% the maximum (which is rarely applied now).

And once a criminal commits a 'lower end' third strike crime, the punishment is more severe than the usual punishment for murder. So a criminal might be prepared to do anything to prevent capture if it meant a minimum 25 years in prison.

However, if the Three Strikes law was amended so that:

First Strike - Judge to sentence on basis similar to current standards. Parole available as current standards. Post release supervision, training and mentoring to be available.
Second Strike - Judge to sentence on basis similar to current standards. Parole unavailable. Post release supervision, training and mentoring to be available.
Third (and subsequent) Strike - Judge must sentence to maximum term of imprisonment. Parole unavailable.

Then injustices (and legal challenges to prison terms) may be avoided. And the three strike provision could be lowered to less serious criminal activity as appropriate.