BayBuzz - Be in the know

If the opinion polls are correct, most voters have tough attitudes on Law and Order.  48% support reintroduction of the death penalty for the worst murder crimes. 75% think sentences imposed on criminals are too soft. (RNZ 25/08/08)

No politician can ignore the polls. The overwhelming public message is “get tough on crime.”

Violent crime is the primary concern. There is a fear in the air, because it can happen anywhere, at anytime, and to any one of us.

A young girl, lured off the street on her way home from school, is raped and strangled. Responding to a call for help, a family man is stabbed to death. An old woman dies after being beaten in her home.

We are “entertained” by TV dramas and movies containing the same gruesome stories, but this is real life and death in New Zealand, and half of us want to see the worst murderers die for their crimes.

Systematically killing your whole family with a rifle would have to qualify for the worst category of murder. So if David Bain is again found guilty, might he be the first executed?  But how to kill him?  Perhaps a select committee will tour the world studying execution methods. They could evaluate on a cost/humane index. Gas, lethal injection, bullet, hanging, guillotine?

Of course, in a “real” democracy, we’d have referenda, and decide everything for ourselves. Murray’s been talking to the American suppliers of electronic voting machines.

Roger&Rodney might suggest executions be “user pays,” with the sale of television rights, and a competition to knit the most spectacular jersey for David to wear on the big day, followed by its auction on TradeMe.

Winston’s expertise might recommend that proceeds be distributed to victims through the Sensible Sentencing Trust, after expenses are deducted.

The Greens will be hard to convince. Russel could be tempted by the recycling model applied in China, where the organs of executed prisoners are sold for transplant, but Jeanette will mutter “compost” and bring him to his senses. We wouldn’t want Jerry overhearing her though. He’d likely turn it into National Party policy.

“No seriously,” as Helen says too often, despite public opinion, no party needs to have a policy on the death penalty. There will not be a law change. Same for the smacking legislation. It’s done and set in stone.

No doubt the people who support capital punishment are among the 75% who think prison sentences for criminals are too soft.

Don’t be concerned. ACT, National, and Labour have heard the message, and endorse tougher sentencing for the most serious offenders. However, it’s not that easy. Parliament can set minimum sentencing, but it is the judiciary who administer the sentence, and there seems a reluctance on their part to get as tough as the people and politicians would like them to be.

Judges think they know better. And so they should. Everyday they are reminded that the majority of the people who appear before them are poor, ill-educated, often illiterate, and from families with inter-generational violence, substance abuse, and prison history. They know prison doesn’t work if the long term aim is a more peaceful society.

Sincere advocacy for reducing violent crime takes a holistic approach, which includes punishment, but also restorative justice, rehabilitation, and prevention.  The Greens and the Maori Party are the most farsighted, and Labour has a strategy broader than just punishment.

Family violence has been targeted as a priority by the current Government, and whoever forms the next coalition, let’s hope the public awareness messages, and support for victims and perpetrators, is developed step-by-step, until the cycle is shifted.

The relationship between violent crime and alcohol has been established. The Greens have the most radical policy for separating cause from effect. They want suppliers held more responsible for the damage their product causes. Higher taxes on alcohol, banning of advertising, and warnings on labels, like on cigarettes.

The ball’s already rolling. “It’s how we drink” is the start of a long term plan to change our attitude toward excessive drinking. And as it costs up to $4 billion a year, alcohol abuse is a major socio-economic problem, which all parties are morally and rationally obliged to address. Like so much National policy, however, there is little detail of where they stand on this sort of “social engineering.”

For those who support a totally punitive “lock ‘im up and throw away the key” approach, your vote belongs with ACT. National are tougher than Labour, but not by much. A coalition with the Greens and/or Maori could ensure tough sentencing balanced by rigorous social policy to reduce crime by way of prevention.