Judicial reforms to add value to stakeholders

The government today responded to criticisms of the judiciary by announcing sweeping reforms of the court system.

The proposals released today by Justice Minister Judith Collins aim to address claims made by some that the judiciary is out of touch, and struggling to adapt to a changing environment.

The Macdonald Trial: What The Jury Didn't Know

With news that Ewen Macdonald is unlikely to win the Manawatu Farmer of the Year Award in the foreseeable future, the question people are now asking is whether the jury got it wrong in his murder trial.

Thanks to numerous crime and forensics TV shows we are all now experts in criminal investigations. As a result of shows like Criminal Minds we now know that a person who commits cruelty against animals and likes to set fires is a high risk of turning into a serial killer.

If we apply this reasoning it is clear who killed Scott Guy. Special Agents Hotchner, Morgan and Rossi would be in no doubt as to who the murderer was.

It's a shame that jury members don't get the opportunity to watch episodes of shows like CSI and Criminal Minds while they are deliberating. I know some people say they're only TV shows, and that the real job of investigating crime is not even remotely as efficient or speedy as it appears on the telly, but I reckon that's just a cop-out. The make-believe crime-fighters on our TV screens are making the real ones look bad, so it's time the real ones lifted their game. We expect immediate turnaround on those DNA results, and we expect each lab person to be an expert in every field of science and technology.

And another thing: why are most of our real cops and detectives so average-looking? I don't wish to sound sexist, but it can't be a coincidence that the women characters on CSI solving crimes in record time are all slim, well-dressed and sexy. Maybe the police need to review their recruiting practices.

Back to the Macdonald jury. They knew about the damage to the Guy home, but they didn't know the full extent of the charges Macdonald was facing. They were only entitled to consider the evidence before them, and that evidence did not point to Macdonald being the murderer. So while the verdict was arguably "correct", it doesn't mean Macdonald didn't kill Scott Guy.

It now seems as if the Crown case was lost when the Crown failed to convince the judge that details of Macdonald's various nefarious activities ought to be admissible. Had the jury had evidence of all the offences Macdonald has now pleaded guilty to, their verdict may well have been different, but that is mere speculation and we won't ever know for sure.

But let's not lose sight of the real villains here. If the police had been as efficient as the CSI guys they would have nailed the killer of Scott Guy within a day.

Crowdsourcing Justice: A New Pilot Project

The Justice Ministry has announced a trial of new technologies to make the justice system more accessible and accountable to the public.

Beginning on 1 August, proceedings in the High Court in Wellington will be streamed live on a dedicated website, and online viewers will be able to interact with trial participants in different ways.

The pilot project will run for three months.

Project facilitator Damien Everett said the aim of the pilot was to deliver a more open and accountable system, where case outcomes were better reflective of community norms and standards.

Mr Everett said the project also had the potential to reduce operational costs within the court system.

Under the pilot project trials will be streamed live on a dedicated website, with trial results being determined by way of vote. Civil cases will be decided by a simple majority of votes, while a criminal conviction will require at least 60% of the votes cast to be in favour of a "guilty" verdict. The higher threshold for criminal trials reflects the need for verdicts to be based on guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".

The pilot will allow votes to be cast at any time during a trial, and voters will not need to wait until all of the evidence in a case has been heard. Officials are confident that this feature will satisfy the current demand by the public to decide the guilt or innocence of a defendant without hearing more than a fraction of the evidence.

Viewers will also be able to participate in sentencing for criminal matters, and the award of damages and other remedies in civil trials.

Mr Everett said a lot of work had been done to ensure the pilot project was a success.

"We've pumped a lot of money into getting the right user interfaces, in order to optimise the customer experience," said Mr Everett.

"We have also developed a Facebook app, and apps for the iPhone and iPad, to encourage public participation."

Voting will be open to anyone aged 18 or over, and viewers will be allowed to vote as often as they like.

A small fee will be charged per vote. Mr Everett said the charge was necessary to cover the costs of the pilot project.

"If people text their votes there will be a ninety-nine cent charge via their telecommunications service provider," said Mr Everett.

"We don't want to discourage public participation, but we don't think a small charge will deter people from taking part."

The pilot project will also involve the trial of a new interactive technology called the "poke".

Previous court hearings, particularly criminal trials, have long suffered from the inability of the public to take their outrage out on the trial participants, such as witnesses, the lawyers, and the defendant.

Under the new technology the decision by a viewer to "poke" one of the trial participants will result in a specially trained court official jabbing the person concerned in the chest with their forefinger, while berating them using a choice of lines selected by the viewer. The lines include "you piece of scum, shooting's too good for you," "I don't know how you can sleep at night defending that filth," and "this is all a beat-up by the pigs against an innocent man. Shame on you!"

The site will also run a live commentary feed, allowing those watching a trial to comment on what they are seeing.

The project will be run and managed by Julie Christie's television production company Eyeworks. Christie's production credits include the shows Missing Pieces, New Zealand's Hottest Home Baker, and Are You Smarter Than a 10 Year Old? The venue for trials during the pilot project will remain the Wellington High Court building, but a full rollout of the project would see the criminal trials of celebrities and good looking young people take place in exotic holiday locations, or in the kitchens of award-winning restaurants.

One of the biggest issues with the pilot is its cost. In the last budget $2.4 million was allocated to the project, but a full rollout across the country would cost between $5-10 million per year. However, the cost savings overall are likely to be considerable, as jurors will no longer need to be paid, fed, or put up in hotels.

Additionally, revenues from selling advertising space are likely to result in the site making a healthy profit.

The Justice Ministry has said that the project will be reviewed by the end of the year, and a decision will be made in February whether to roll the initiative out across the rest of the country.

The pilot project is controversial, and many lawyers and community justice groups are outraged at the plans.

"Justice is not a popularity contest, nor is it a beauty parade," said top barrister Tabatha Wilde, QC.

"The only thing that matters is the evidence, not whether the public like someone."

But Gary McCrikery of the First Family Sentencing Trust, has labelled such comments as "elitist" and "undemocratic."

"We're delighted the government is finally listening to the people," said Mr McCrikery.

"We welcome any moves to open up the justice system to scrutiny, and to encourage the public to participate in trials.

"We agree that justice should be blind, but why can't it be deaf and dumb as well?"

The Macdonald Trial: Did The System Work?

It’s difficult to go anywhere near the news media or internet without stumbling across masses of misinformation about our criminal justice system.

I don’t really mind that some people think a killer got off. Only one person really knows if that’s true (or two people, if Macdonald wasn't the killer!), assuming he hasn’t confessed his sins to his priest or therapist. So anyone who opines on whether or not Macdonald did the deed is just blowing hot air and should be ignored.

I was critical of the Crown’s decision to prosecute on the basis of what appears like flimsy evidence, but I don’t have an opinion on whether Macdonald got away with murder. He may have. However, the jury got it right. The fact of the matter is that juries can only decide on someone’s guilt on the basis of the evidence put in front of them.

In that respect the Crown failed. Macdonald was acquitted, not because he didn’t kill Scott Guy, but because the Crown couldn’t prove that he did.

One apparent controversy regarding this case is the fact that Ewen Macdonald didn’t take the stand in his own defence. This seems to have irked Wellington writer David Stevenson* to such an extent that he’s written a column in the Herald today on how he thinks the legal system is failing us.

I don’t for a moment think our system is perfect, and we all know of instances where someone has been subjected to a gross injustice via the court system. But however imperfect our system is, it beats most of the alternatives. Our system has evolved over centuries, and it will continue to evolve. What we don’t need are sweeping changes being introduced without much thought for the consequences.

Take the right to silence. David Stevenson thinks it should be abolished.

… (according to Halsbury's Laws of England) it evolved more than 200 years ago because the legal establishment felt that the uneducated criminal classes should be protected, as a matter of fairness, from incriminating themselves.

Can a law designed to protect uneducated ancient Britons from themselves have any place in today's educated society where personal accountability is required in all other aspects of life?

The right to silence is not some archaic legal principle that has no value in today’s legal system. The right is inextricably linked to the presumption of innocence. If we believe in the presumption of innocence, then it is for the agencies of the state to prove a person’s wrongdoing. If we are now to say that accused people must take the stand, we are really saying we think they are guilty and that it is for the accused to prove otherwise. That is effectively a presumption of guilt.

Stevenson blames the legal aid system on the fact that some people have the nerve to defend themselves:

The dysfunctional role that legal aid can now play in criminal trials also deserves scrutiny. Legal aid was introduced to ensure that those facing criminal charges had access to legal advice and representation.

Again, because a criminal trial is not held to establish the truth but sets out to establish whether the prosecution can prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, legal aid often gets used (perfectly legally and properly under the present defective system) to fund evidence to cast doubt on the prosecution case.

But that’s absurd. Legal aid has been cut to the bone, and the pay structure is such that there are now perverse incentives for lawyers to encourage their clients to plead guilty.

It’s even more absurd when you consider the vast resources available to the police and Crown. The prosecution in a major trial will typically have a large team of lawyers and experts, and police witnesses eager to nail the accused. Against this army the accused will typically have a small team, perhaps only one lawyer, and may be left at the end of the trial financially crippled.

A common tactic used by police (as any criminal defence lawyer will tell you) is to overcharge an accused person, in the hope that they’ll cop to a lesser plea. Another tactic they sometime use is to pursue a weak case right up to the very day of hearing, before suddenly dropping the case. They do this in the hope that the pressure (emotional and financial) on the accused will force a guilty plea.

And what will the average defendant have to counter this all? Probably a lawyer funded through legal aid, but a lawyer who’s already overworked and underpaid, and who can’t afford to spend too much time on preparation.

This is why we need to maintain the right to silence and the presumption of innocence. The playing field is not an even one, and it never has been. With the resources of state law enforcement agencies growing and becoming more sophisticated, and with more and more surveillance rights and special powers being granted by Parliament to law enforcement agencies, the right for a person accused of a crime to say nothing is more important than ever.

Stevenson suggests a number of other reforms, that he claims if implemented would reduce the number of trials. Presumably this would be because the scales would be tipped so unfairly in favour of the prosecution that accused persons would plead guilty at an early stage. That would be a good thing if everyone charged with an offence was guilty, but that is not the case at all.

It's obvious that the not guilty verdict will not bring "closure" to the family of the dead man. That's regrettable, but our system isn't designed to do that. It's designed to determine whether there is enough evidence to hold a person accused of a crime guilty. I almost sense from Stevenson's argument that he thinks Macdonald should have gone down for the crime, regardless of the lack of evidence directly tying him to the killing, just to make the Guy family feel better.

And one final comment on the Macdonald verdict. I’m fairly confident that the jury’s decision would have been the same even if they had all read Hamlet.

And the next person who quotes King Lear will be very, very sorry indeed.

* Is the writer of the opinion piece this David Stevenson? I honestly don't know. I suppose it's a common enough name. Does anyone know if they are the same person?

The Scottish Verdict And Some Other Alternatives

The acquittal of Ewen Macdonald on Tuesday has reignited debate over whether we should adopt the “Scottish Verdict” as part of our criminal justice system.

I’m not a fan of Scottish innovations generally, particularly the kilt or the bagpipe. The sound of a highland bagpipe band can be most stirring, but when played badly the bagpipe is positively damaging to the health of those it is inflicted upon. If I am ever to face trial for murder, as Ewen Macdonald did, it will be because I went on a stabbing frenzy after enduring the searing noise of a lone bagpiping busker.

But the Scottish jury system deserves some consideration. Under Scottish law the jury has the power to deliver a “not proven” verdict, which is an acquittal but one which recognises that the jury were not convinced of the accused’s innocence.

Personally, I’d be in favour of giving juries more discretion to deliver verdicts that better fit their perception of the accused. However, I don’t see why we should have to limit ourselves to three verdicts like the Scottish do: guilty, not guilty and not proven. We can do better than that.

Let’s look at some possible additions to the current two options available to juries.

Guilty as sin

Criteria:  Under this verdict, the accused is so utterly, absurdly guilty that his or her continuing maintenance of innocence is an affront to all decent people.

Effect:  The effect of this verdict is that no appeal is allowed, and the accused’s lawyer is also to be tarred and feathered in a public place for allowing this insult to the justice system to continue in such a grotesque manner.

Quite guilty

Criteria:  Maybe the evidence isn’t quite all there, but we all know the bastard did it. Quite possibly the evidence is actually weak, but the guy’s body language shows he did it. Plus, the guy won’t even take the stand to testify in his own defence, which everyone knows means he’s a guilty son of a bitch, and don’t give me any of those legal niceties about the right to silence.

Effect:  Like a guilty verdict, but journalists, writers and former All Blacks will be permitted to make hay writing books about the case, and proclaiming the guilt or innocence of the person concerned.

Guilty because I don’t like him/her

Criteria:  For nailing someone the jury dislikes for no rational reason, such as the colour of their skin, their sexual preference, or their religion. For use when the evidence is weak but the accused must be punished for some offence they have caused to the jury.

Effect:  Like the Quite Guilty verdict, except that the accused is automatically entitled to one retrial in front of a more civilised group of jurors.

Not guilty but a villainous piece of work

Criteria:  Where the evidence doesn’t warrant a conviction, but where the jury aren’t convinced the accused is innocent of the crime, because the accused is such a nasty character.

Effect:  The same as an acquittal, except that the accused is to be taken to a public place, stripped down, and flogged before the news media.

Not guilty but there’s a stink about this chap that I don't like and I won’t have him in my club

Criteria:  Similar to Not Guilty but a Villainous Piece of Work, except that the accused is not quite as repulsive or loathsome.

Effect:  Like an acquittal, but the accused is barred from joining any golf clubs, church choirs, sports teams, or Rotary clubs for five years from the date of the verdict. The acquitted subject is also to be spoken about in whispers whenever the accused is amongst friends and work colleagues.

Not guilty and a pillar of the community

Criteria:  Where the accused is white, middle-aged and wealthy.

Effect:  An acquittal. The acquitted person writes a book detailing his experiences in prison awaiting trial, the most harrowing of which involved having to use 2-ply toiletpaper.

Not guilty due to being innocent, but with reservations

Criteria:  For use where it’s clear that the accused didn’t commit the crime, but where some moral flaw on the part of the accused (e.g. he/she is an ACT MP or likes UB40) prevents the jury from being overly sympathetic.

Effect: An acquittal and a declaration that the accused is innocent, but the accused still leaves the court with his/her head hanging in shame.

Not guilty due to being innocent, should never have been tried, has been the victim of a monstrous witch-hunt by the police and Crown, and is just like Jesus

Criteria:  For use whenever a celebrity is on trial.

Effect:  An acquittal, except that the accused must accept as many hugs, marriage proposals and autograph requests as the jury may demand.

The Ewen Macdonald Trial: A Hopeless Crown Case

I wrote the bulk of this post last week, when it became clear that Ewen Macdonald would be acquitted. I followed the case closely, but it was difficult not to. What caught my attention was not the sight of the Guy and Macdonald women crying in front of the camera every night, but the astonishing fact that the Crown didn't appear to have any strong evidence.

However, the sub judice rule meant I wasn't able to publicly comment until now.

It's commonplace for the police and Crown to get an ear-bashing whenever the accused person in a high profile case is acquitted. Sometimes it's deserved, but sometimes the jury just surprises everyone.

In the case of Ewen Macdonald the system has worked. The Crown put up a shoddy case full of holes and inconsistencies, but the jury weren't fooled.

The evidence put up against Macdonald was weak. It's all very well establishing a motive for murder, but motive isn't enough. The crucial evidence supposedly linking Macdonald to the crime scene was a pair of boots the accused was supposed to own. Boots that were never found. Boots that may have been chucked out years ago. Boots that left prints possibly too large to be those of Macdonald's.

Nobody should be fooled into thinking that the verdict suddenly makes Macdonald a saint, or some harmless salt-of-the-earth cockie. His earlier behaviour towards the Guys was appalling and inexcusable and deeply disturbing, and many people will remain convinced that a murderer has walked free. We'll never know whether Macdonald killed Scott Guy, unless there's an "If I Did It" book in the pipeline or a deathbed confession. I suspect Macdonald won't get the superstar treatment David Bain got when he was acquitted.

Some people will say the system has failed the Guy family, but those people should not blame the court system. They ought to blame the police and Crown for bringing a case that was always going to end in an acquittal and more pain for the Guy family.

Rule Of Law Survey: We're Number One, Baby!* (In Your Face, Nigeria!)

In my relentless crusade to drive the Nats out of office, whimpering and yowling like miserable beaten dogs, I may sometimes be guilty of losing focus on the good things in life.

Our government may aspire to run our nation into the ground and make our children beggars in their own country, but in at least one important area we are managing to maintain first world standards.

For all our faults we remain an orderly, peaceful country with a good and functioning democracy.

The latest confirmation of this comes from an academic grouping called the World Justice Project. Its study, the Rule of Law Index 2011, ranks New Zealand as one of the best performing countries in the world when it comes to adherence to rule of law.

The report defines the rule of law as a rules-based system in which the following four universal principles are upheld:

• The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.
• The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.
• The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.
• Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

The report measures eight factors derived from these universal principles

Limited Government Powers: This is the extent to which the government is subject to the law. This factor measures the extent of the checks on the powers of government, for example institutional checks on government power by the legislature, the judiciary and independent auditing and review agencies; what the sanctions are for government misconduct; and whether transfers of power occur in accordance with the law.

Absence of Corruption: The presence or absence of three forms of corruption is measured: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources.

Order and Security: i.e. how well the society assures the security of persons and property. This factor measures the absence of crime; the absence of civil conflict, including terrorism and armed conflict; and the absence of violence as a socially acceptable means to redress personal grievances.

Fundamental Rights: this factor measures protection of fundamental human rights. In particular it measures the effective enforcement of laws that ensure equal protection; freedom of thought, religion, and expression; freedom of assembly and association; fundamental labour rights (including the right to collective bargaining, the prohibition of forced and child labour, and the elimination of discrimination); the rights to privacy and religion; the right to life and security of the person; and due process of law and the rights of the accused.

Open Government: this measures the opportunity to know what the law is and what conduct is permitted and prohibited. Adherence requires that the law be comprehensible and its meaning sufficiently clear, publicised, and explained to the general public in plain language, for them to be able to abide by it. Open government also encompasses the opportunity to participate in the process by which the laws are made and administered.

Regulatory Enforcement: this factor concerns the fair and effective enforcement of administrative regulations. It seeks to assess how well regulations are implemented and enforced, including the absence of improper influence by public officials or private interests; adherence to administrative procedures that are fair, consistent, and predictable; and freedom from government taking of private property without adequate compensation.

Access to Civil Justice: adherence requires that the system be affordable, effective, impartial, and culturally competent

Effective Criminal Justice: this measures how effective the system is in addressing and adjudicating crimes, how free from corruption and improper government influence the criminal justice system is, and whether the system accords the accused due process of law.

The data covers 66 nations, including most of the OECD countries.

We rank very highly in the study.

When our performance under each of these factors is ranked out of ten, we come tops for one factor, second for two, third for three, and fourth for another. The only factor where we don’t perform as well is in Order and Security – we're “only” 11th.

When measured regionally the result is even better: first for six of the eight factors (beaten by Hong Kong in the other two).

The results for each of the eight factors (divided into four main categories and with each factor then divided into sub-factors) are depicted below:

(click the above image to enlarge)

The New Zealand result is based on a sample of 1006 people surveyed this year in our three biggest cities, using computer assisted telephone interviews (called the CATI methodology). The report indicates they also spoke to a large number of legal luminaries, so the results ought to be reasonably robust.

So there’s something at least to be grateful for. We're not a banana republic just yet.

* In our region, and globally in one category.

No Early Christmas for Bain As Settlement Bid Falls Flat

The Government probably didn’t waste too much time in rejecting a settlement proposal by the legal team of David Bain.

According to the Herald, the proposal was for an amount to be paid to Bain in settlement of any claim Bain would have for wrongful imprisonment.

The trouble is that to be entitled to compensation Bain would need to effectively prove his innocence. Without wishing to pre-judge the strength of any compensation claim, that would seem a tough task. It may be a reflection of the tough battle Bain faces that his team have made the bid to settle, even though they must have known it would almost certainly be rejected.

The rejection is appropriate and right, not because Bain may not be innocent, but because the thing about justice is that it must be seen to be done. A deal done behind closed doors without a review of all the evidence would leave many believing that a murderer just got rewarded for his ill deeds. Many remain convinced that Bain killed his family.

The desire of Bain’s legal team to spare the taxpayer a lot of money is laudable. However, cost should not be a primary driver when issues of justice are concerned.

Meet The New Spokesperson For The Sensible Sentencing Trust

Is there anything a politician won't do to gain support for a policy?

Take Judith Collins' shameless piece in the Herald today on the three-strikes law.

Her piece starts by relating the story of a horrible crime. We are being told that anyone who commits such crimes is a monster and must be put away forever.

As horrible as the crime committed by Nicholas Hawker clearly was, it isn't easy to see just what that has to do with the three-strikes law Collins is writing in support of. Nowhere does the article suggest that Hawker would have gone away for life (I mean actual life) if he had committed this offence under the proposed new laws. Would he have been on a strike already? If so why didn't Collins mention the fact?

This blatant piece of emotional manipulation also ignores the fact that judges now have the ability to impose minimum sentences, and that parole laws have been toughened considerably since the 1997 murder (a murder committed under a National government. Soft on crime, were they?)

So why raise the case, other than to smear opponents of the silly new law?

Collins says:

Time and again, victims of crime have told me they feel let down by a system that seems to put greater emphasis on the rights of offenders than victims.

Well, yes, of course they feel that way. Can you imagine many victims of a serious violent crime being satisfied with anything other than the ritual disembowelment of the offender? If someone did away with one of my children I'd want to see the person chopped into small pieces. And yet I don't support the death penalty. If our aim is solely to satisfy victims of crime then let's do away with sentencing by judges and conduct a poll of the victims: "Who wants to hang him? Any bids for a flogging? Stoning? What about life in a windowless cage?"

Could it be (and I know this will sound dreadfully unpopular) that we talk too much about the rights of victims already? How can we be impartial in our exercise of justice if we let emotion dominate proceedings?

But there's more:

People expect safe communities, where they can walk the streets without the threat of violence or intimidation, where they can sleep at night knowing their families are safe in their homes, where there is respect for property, people and the law.

Maybe we ought to then look at why people commit crime. Surely "because they're just bad people" doesn't really explain it. But that might raise a number of uncomfortable questions about the influence of poverty and economic disadvantage.

In this country we have many people who have made a thriving industry out of making excuses for criminals.

Those damned human rights people! Lefties, all of 'em!

In the past decade these people have overwhelmed the debate on law and order with their views on the rights of offenders.

Actually, who are "these people"? Because the only people who appear to be dominating the debate at the current time are the lock-em-up types beloved of the Sensible Sentencing Trust. Note the reference to "the past decade" - ooh, it must be Labour she's referring to.

By making excuses for criminals, these people send a very strong signal that crime is acceptable in our communities, that it is an accepted fact of life.

I'm not sure that comment has any basis in reality. Would the Minister care to provide an example?

Recently, a senior judge told me that he believed there was "far too much emphasis on victims in our courts at the moment".

Blame the judges too. Bunch of pansy liberals, all of them.

It's this acceptance that every crime is solely a crime against the state rather than the individual that I believe is at the heart of the situation we now find ourselves in.

You wonder if she was shaking her head while she wrote this, marvelling at her own audacity. Does Collins really believe judges have no respect for victims? Of course they have respect - they are human, and they have to sit through these trials, listening to every ghastly detail. But judges are also responsible for upholding the rule of law. They must balance the rights of the victim with the rights of the offender (yes, even "bad people" have rights in our pansy liberal nanny-state) and the interests of justice as a whole. Judges must also follow precedent.

Justice and punishment must be impersonal, but that does not mean it should be blind to the human impact of crime and the human need for redress.

Straw man set up and ready to go down!

For every crime there are victims like Leigh and her family, and for justice to be truly done it must strive to bring peace and closure to those victims.

Bringing peace and closure are not the sole aims of the criminal justice system. Besides, many victims will never have closure - the trauma is just impossible to overcome. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I don't believe prison should be enjoyable. Prison should be an unpleasant experience so offenders do not want to return.

Next straw man ready to go down! I'd be surprised if many offenders think prison is a holiday camp. The fact of the matter is that many of these folk are messed up and lack the ability to control their behaviour. They don't think rationally. Most of them don't stop to think "if I waste that guy and get caught I'm going inside". Most violent offending is impulsive.

The justice system's sole focus should not be on punishment. It is very important to give people the opportunity to turn their lives around.

But pressure from those who advocate for the rights of criminals has resulted in too much focus on rehabilitating the prisoners who are least likely to be rehabilitated.

Those damn liberals again. But how do you know who can and cannot be rehabilitated?

The policy will deter criminals from committing further crimes...

Based on what evidence? 

...keep the worst offenders behind bars for longer and bring certainty to sentencing of the most hardened offenders.

Like a guy who maybe in his youth was a bad sort, but finds Jesus and then 20 years later gets done for manslaughter because he makes a careless mistake on the road? It's life without parole for him under the new law. Would that be a fair result?

Finally, shouldn't Garth McVicar get a writing credit for this article?

Another Dumb Petition

Well this is a bit silly.

A group of Robin Bain supporters has launched a petition calling on Justice Minister Simon Power to deny his son David Bain's application for compensation for the time he spent in jail after being convicted of the murders of five members of his family in 1995.

Advertisements were placed in major papers today, calling for people to sign up to the petition at www.davidbain.counterspin.co.nz.

By midday, just over 300 people had signed up.

Whether Bain gets compensation or not should have nothing to do with public opinion. My understanding of the compensation procedure is that if it can be shown on a balance of probabilities that Bain is innocent, he will be entitled to compensation.

So what are the petition organisers afraid of? If Bain's guilty as sin (and I assume that's what is behind the petition), how will he ever pass that hurdle? So what have they to fear?

I would be interested to know if any of the petition organisers are relatives who benefited from the estate of Bain’s parents. Bain lost his inheritance because he was found guilty in 1995 of the murder of his parents. I don’t know whether he would have a claim against those relatives now. But an award of compensation might give Bain the funds he needs to fight any legal battles over his inheritance. This is pure speculation, by the way. For all I know, his relatives might be of the view that if Bain is compensated he may be less likely to chase his inheritance.

Anyway, the petition's still dumb. Bain’s been tried and acquitted. One could make a strong argument that Bain should be given compensation even if it isn’t shown on the balance of probabilities that he didn’t kill his family. Why? Because he was locked up for 13 years for something ultimately the Crown failed to prove he did. Anyone who is imprisoned and subsequently acquitted should be entitled to compensation for time spent in prison. Otherwise, doesn’t it send the message that even though someone’s not guilty, they still deserved to be punished? That’s not how our justice system should work.

I’ve never formed a firm view on Bain’s guilt or innocence, and I find the ongoing did- he/didn’t-he speculation both pointless and boring. Critics of the Bain acquittal abound, and I’m sure the anti-Bain petition will attract many signatures. But so what? Are we really going to conduct a public poll each time there is a legal issue to be determined? The only poll that matters is the one taken in the jury room.

Maybe next time I get a speeding ticket I’ll start a petition.