BALANCING THE SCALES OF JUSTICE
AUTHOR: Peter Dunne
Over the weekend we saw once more the awful effect that violent crime has on its victims and their families. I am referring, of course, to the Sensible Sentencing meeting where the justice system was symbolically put on trial and unanimously found guilty of failing the victims of crime.
I have always held more than a passing interest in the work of Sensible Sentencing, which, on the whole has made a valuable contribution to the debate about crime and punishment, even if sometimes it goes too far. My instinctive reaction to some of the weekend’s comments about the treatment that should be meted out to violent offenders left me feeling that way, and wondering just how long it would be before Sensible Sentencing goes way out on a limb and starts actively promoting capital punishment.
But then I began to think about the victims, and how I would feel in a similar situation. I would like to believe my response would be compassionate, if maybe not forgiving, but understanding that little point would be served by whipping myself up into in an ongoing lather of bitterness and anger. But would I? How would I really feel if it was my wife, or one of my sons that had been slain in cold blood, or mutilated or bashed beyond recognition? Would my liberal instincts remain intact, or would I too be crying for vengeance?
I think I know the answer. The faces of the people in that meeting were the saddened and unashamedly normal faces of decent, real New Zealanders whose lives have been changed forever by the wanton violence of others. In a similar situation, I could well be one of them. And herein lies the problem.
I think the justice system does fail the victims of crime in so many ways. We need to be heeding, not just hearing, what they have to say. There is still inadequate support for their ongoing needs. We need to do more in the areas of compensation and reparation, and restorative justice generally. There should be greater acknowledgement of victims’ impact statements when early release is being considered. Parole should be a privilege to be earned, not an automatic right – the presumption should be that the sentence imposed, will be the sentence served. Greater use should be made of preventive detention for the most serious violent offenders. We should never even contemplate a return to capital punishment, and be permanently wary of always increasing maximum sentences when we fail to apply fully those currently available.
That is all on the punitive side, however. It makes clear society’s revulsion at the crimes committed, and to that extent acknowledges the community’s right to extract some revenge on criminals. That is an important and proper part of the process. But it is not the solution. It does nothing to prevent the next wave of criminals emerging. Deterrence by itself is an inadequate response to violent crime. We have to focus as strongly on reducing, if not eliminating, the causes of violent crime, and providing decent rehabilitation opportunities for those sufficiently well-motivated to try to turn the corner.
Social factors, like deprivation, unemployment, drugs, are obvious areas we have to target. Even though the high rates of recidivism suggest it is a futile cause, we also have to do more in the area of rehabilitation. Former prisoners who struggle to find gainful employment after release are inevitably headed on a one-way course back to prison. Yet, we know all these things, and have done so for years. But our apathy does little to improve the situation.
All this amounts to seeking a more balanced approach to crime and punishment than we have currently. We owe that to the victims of crime seeking justice, as much as we owe it to the criminals receiving justice. The challenge remains to achieve that balance.