Study Says Three Strikes Bill Could Silence Family Violence Victims
A study by Rethinking Crime and Punishment is reported by NZHerald. The study involved a survey that found that the Three strikes bill was likely to increase the levels of unreported family violence.
‘”Rethinking has discussed the three-strikes bill with a group of offenders, ex-offenders and their families and whanau,” director Kim Workman said.’
“A recent USA study found that in cities with three-strikes laws, homicide rates increased on average 13-14 per cent in the short term and 16-24 per cent in the long term, compared with cities without the laws. “But what it also showed, was that victims of family violence would be less likely to report violence against them from their partners, if they knew it would be followed by imprisonment without parole, in the case of a second strike, or 25 years in prison on the third strike. “The common reaction of the partners was, `I don’t want to put my old man away in prison for a long time; I just want him to stop hitting me’.”
As if this was not bad enough – “Confidential documents issued under the Official Information Act and obtained by the Dominion Post also show that the Government has been warned the policy could breach human rights, cause misbehaviour in prison, and clog courts.”
It is time that this shockingly inept piece of legislation is thrown out for good. Garret has been shown to be an ideologue with no real clue about the realities of the Justice System. This legislation was a knee-jerk ‘tough on crime’ response to win voters without any real costings or evidence behind it. The Three strikes legislation must be removed from Parliament, I ask everyone to contact Simon Power, John Key, David Garret and their local MP to register their distatste for such a flawed piece of legislation!
Loco Burro Politics - NZ 
Kim Workman was doing so well … and then he makes this idiotic claim.
US three-strikes laws, like the one in California, count domestic violence as a strike offence.
The Sensible Sentencing Trust’s draft, and ACT’s draft did also (assault on child, or by a male on a female – the standard domestice violence offence – was included).
The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill does not. This argument is thus completely non-sensical.
Very unfortunate. He seemed to have so much promise.
LocoBurro: Um – I would say these count as family violence when committed on someone in your family environment Graeme
“(2) section 129 (attempted sexual violation and assault with intent to commit sexual violation):
“(3) section 129A(1) (sexual connection with consent induced by threat):
“(5) section 131(1) (sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years):
“(6) section 131(2) (attempted sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years):
“(7) section 132(1) (sexual connection with child):
“(8) section 132(2) (attempted sexual connection with child):
“(9) section 132(3) (indecent act on child):
“(10) section 134(1) (sexual connection with young person):
“(11) section 134(2) (attempted sexual connection with young person):
“(12) section 134(3) (indecent act on young person):
“(13) section 135 (indecent assault):
“(17) section 172 (murder):
“(18) section 173 (attempted murder):
“(19) section 177 (manslaughter):
“(20) section 188(1) (wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
“(21) section 188(2) (wounding with intent to injure):
“(22) section 189(1) (injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm):
“(23) section 191(1) (aggravated wounding):
“(24) section 191(2) (aggravated injury):
Or even in the bill you posted on your blog:
Murder contrary to section 167 or 168 of the Crimes Act
Manslaughter contrary to section 171 of the Crimes Act
Wounding with intent contrary to section 188 of the Crimes Act
Injuring with intent contrary to section 189 of the Crimes Act
Injuring by an unlawful act contrary to section 190 of the Crimes Act
Aggravated wounding or injury contrary to section 191 of the Crimes Act
Aggravated assault contrary to section 192 of the Crimes Act
Assault with intent to injure contrary to section 193 of the Crimes Act
Assault on a child, or by a male on a female contrary to section 194 of the Crimes Act
Cruelty to a child contrary to section 195 of the Crimes Act
Of course murder can be committed in a domestic violence context, but do you really think Kim Workman is concerned that victims of murder won’t complain because they’re concerned about their partner going to prison?
The quote was:
“The common reaction of the partners was, `I don’t want to put my old man away in prison for a long time; I just want him to stop hitting me’.”
Thus he is not talking about attempted sexual violation and assault with intent to commit sexual violation or sexual connection with consent induced by threat or sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years or attempted sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years or sexual connection with child or attempted sexual connection with child or indecent act on child or sexual connection with young person or attempted sexual connection with young person or indecent act on young person or indecent assaultor murder or attempted murder or manslaughteror wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm or wounding with intent to injure or injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm or aggravated wounding or aggravated injury.
He is talking about a simple domestic assault. Because the study he is quoting is talking about a simple domestic assault. That study makes a lot of sense for a three-strikes regime where simple domestic assault is a strike offence. It is irrelevant for a three strikes regime that does not.
You quote from the bill I analysed on my blog. As I note, that is based on the SST draft of the bill, and that proposal is not reflected in the draft law. The SST and ACT drafts do include male assaults female. The draft bill does not.
Locoburro:Are you serious Graeme. Everyone of those offences are part of the domestic violence context. The quote may involve “hitting” but you are being too specific and building a strawman out of the comment. Replace hitting with other words: “touching”, “threatening”, “beating” “taking to me with a bat’, all words and comments which have been made by victims of domestic violence – ‘I would have come forward but I thought it might be the last time and I still love him’ is a common refrain. The simple fact is this bill will cause people to think again about reporting a crime in their home, committed by a family member or friend. This alone should cause people to question the bill and protest it strongly. Even if you want to continue your argument around the quotation, even the perception of a strict sentence might cause the victim to pause, and perceptions are easily created when a Bill has proponents who stir up a current of hate and fear. I apologise for not making clear the quotation of the bill from your site
Thought I would clarify a couple of points.
1. The survey was carried out with a nujmber of whanau, all of whom are or have been associated with gangs. Most of them were ex-offenders, some not. All have been violent to their partners in the past, and currently wrestling with the issue of family violence. Many of them would have contributed to the 300 women that were hsopitalised from the impact family violence last year. Their bashing goes well beyond male assaulting female charges, and they would qualify for the more serious assaults covered in the three strikes legislation. The ‘hitting’ they talked about covered the spectrum.
2. Before we asked the questions, I explained the three strikes legislation, and asked them to reflect on what they would do if the legislation was in effect today, and their partner already had one strike for serious crime – violence, armed robbery, etc, and they committed a violent assault on them. Would they turn them in?
3. This is a group that is changing its position ond violence, and in increasing numbvers are reporting violence to the Police, leaving home, putting protection orders in place, calling for whanau support and so on.
4. What came through, was that they did not want partners going to prison for a non-parole period of more than five years, or in the case of a third strike, twenty five years. They were critical of the legislation, in that it would discourage people like themselves from engaging with the criminal justice system on the issue. When you set the sanctions threshold too high, people disengage from the system, and lose their respect for it.
5. Incidentally, the Police definition of family violence is very broad. It can include verbal abuse, burglary of a partner’s home , trespass, and breach of protection orders. That is because there is no such thing as a ‘simple domestic assault’. All the above hcan and do have a serious impact on families, remembering that 50% of all violence is witnessed by children. The Police encourage that high level of reporting, so they can track offendes who repeatedly abuse and assault their partners. That is another one of the reasons why there is a high and rising level of recorded family violence, at a time when non-family violence reporting has remained relatively stable.
6. I have to say that this is they most misunderstood piece of legislation in a very long time, – people regularly quote the SST proposal as though it were the actual Bill – and ACT’s publicity (especially its 78 victims)was promoted on the basis of the SST Bill, rather than the current legislation. The public deserve to be better informed than they are.
7. REsearch in the UK and USA shows that where respondents have been asked to impose sentences in hypothetical cases involving mandatory sentences or three strikes, and have been informed as to how it works there is very low support for mandatory sentencing. In a study conducted in Ohio on three strikes legislation, respondents were asked whether they supported the law without been given any context to the question. Eighty-eight percent of respondents supported the proposal. When asked to impose sentences in a number of detailed case scenarios, the proportion of respondents supporting the proposal dropped to 17%.
7. Our experience to date, is that we have yet to find someone who fully understands the legislation, and its likely impact.
LocoBurro: Thanks for your response, I have reproduced your comments in a seperate post because I feel they are extremely important for people to read and pass on. Cheers