Act's 'three strikes' policy would cost "$3 to $4 billion"
Act’s 'three strikes' law and order policy would cost $3 -4 billion, says the director of a project aimed at reforming the prison system in New Zealand.
The policy would sentence offenders to 25 years in jail after a third violent offence.
But Kim Workman of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, which is led by the Salvation Army and Prison Fellowship New Zealand, says Act’s $1 billion costing for the policy is wildly optimistic and it could cost four times that much.
"During the election campaign, Act spokesman David Garrett said they would spend up to $1 billion to implement the policy. In fact, it would cost $3 -4 billion to implement, and a further ongoing cost of $56-75 million annual operational costs.”
According to the project’s analysis, the Department of Corrections has 15,000 offenders with three or more convictions for violence on its books, with more than half of those not currently in prison.
“Over a very short space of time, we would end up with between 7000 and 10,000 more offenders serving a prison sentence,” says Mr Workman.
“I have asked the Department of Corrections to check my figures. But if those figures are correct, it would be fiscally irresponsible to agree to the three strikes' proposal as part of a coalition deal.”
He says New Zealand needs to take a lesson from the US, where eight states are trying to exit “three strikes” legislation. Mr Workman gives two reasons for their change of heart.
“Firstly, they can no longer afford it. Secondly, they can't find people willing to staff prisons that are inhumane and overcrowded,” he says.
“Most thinking New Zealanders would prefer to see their dollars invested in some of National's positive initiatives - the 'Fresh Start' programme for young offenders, and community based treatment for mentally ill and addicted offenders would be a great place to start.”
Act’s “three strikes” policy stands little chance of being implemented, however, as National could work with the Maori Party to pass any corrections legislation too liberal for Act’s hardliners to stomach.
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
















Comments and questions4
Forget the lefty concerns about the cost to establish and run a three strikes policy and focus on the savings for victims of violent crime, and those left behind to deal with the consequences. These are real financial and emotional costs born by innocent people.
Why wait for three strikes, these criminals add no value to New Zealand.
These are the type of policies that meant honest New Zealanders who want to work hard and reap the rewards themselves voted the way they did.
ACT's three strikes policy is not the same as those in the USA. ACT's has a very high threshhold, being two previous convictions for violent offences. A large number of murders in NZ have been committed by people with three or more previous convictions for violent offences, so this is very much an issue of protecting the public from dangerous criminals. Forget the namby pamby stuff about affordability and listen to the families of murder victims.
God, this isn't labour, the policy isn't retrospective, so the numbers that Rethinking Crime and Punishment are using are just plain wrong. If she is basing the costing on those whom are already in prison with X amount of offenses she has made an error of logic.
Part of the policy is a requirement for those on their 2nd offence to be warned by a judge that on their 3rd offence they are out for good. It would be those who commit an offence after the policy comes into effect whom would be subject to the 3 strikes and they are out, essentially its a social contract.
How could any party call itself liberal and at the same time promote such a backward, barbaric policy that's failed so tremendously in the US? Hopefully the Nationals will throw this insanity under the bus.
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below