FAQs

Our opponents sometimes suggest Sensible Sentencing Trust wants to “lock everyone up and throw away the key”.   We only want to see serious and recidivist criminals imprisoned, and yes generally for longer than most are under present legal settings.  We don’t seek to imprison persons committing low level crime, unless they are unwilling or unable to stop offending – there must be a point at which imprisonment becomes inevitable.  We want to protect people and their property from those who wish to do harm.

We are proud of our positions on criminal justice and believe they are the common sense and just approach – despite opponents and some media seeking to paint our positions negatively.

In fact, it is Sensible Sentencing Trust’s view that the vast majority of all sentences imposed for criminal offending are about right – but that is because the vast majority of sentences imposed are for lower level offending where sentences of community work, fines or home detention are generally imposed. 

But it is many of the most serious (and often high profile) cases such as murders, manslaughters, serious sexual offending and serious violence for which Sensible Sentencing Trust considers most sentences imposed are grossly inadequate.  Many of these cases appear in the media as they are highly newsworthy and highlight the inadequacy of the sentence imposed.

Undoubtedly.  New Zealand has got itself in something of a pickle where we have the worst of both worlds – a relatively high violent and sexual crime rate and a relatively high imprisonment rate.  In our view this is driven by decades of Government experiments of being soft on crime, which we believe is a failure.

Ideally, we could achieve the nirvana of a low crime rate and a low imprisonment rate, but in Sensible Sentencing Trust’s  view that is achieved, broadly, through focusing on a high imprisonment rate first to drive a low crime rate – because serious and recidivist criminals are in prison for longer – not creating victims in wider society.

This turnaround, if any Government is up for it, will likely to take at least a generation to bed in.  We consider it a true example of ‘social investment’.

Yes, imprisonment is very effective at stopping crime – at least while the criminal is in prison. It is extremely difficult to commit criminal offences against the public or other vulnerable people while in prison.

Our opponents often say that prison doesn’t work.  What they really mean is that they don’t like the way that it works.  In an ideal world, prisons would not be needed, and Sensible Sentencing Trust would love to get to that point, but won’t hold our breath.

The difficult part, and the opportunity, is for Government and social agencies to wisely use the time while a criminal is imprisoned to clearly identify their problems and wrap intensive support around them for the common issues of drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues and educational failure.

Often, these efforts are relatively successful in prison, and some prisoners are model citizens while in prison, but when released without sufficient support and separation from negative influences and acquaintances, fall easily back into their criminal habits.

It is also important to remember that while our prisons are called the Department of Corrections, they have a virtually impossible job trying to ‘correct’ the lives of the many thousands of seriously neglected and damaged individuals that come through their doors.

We don’t make excuses for criminal offending, but recognise that most prisoners have at some stage been failed primarily by their own family, an education system that too readily accepts failure, and in part, the justice system itself when they start coming into contact with it – and learn that the system is not serious.  Those lessons carry on for many criminals who simply go on to become recidivist offenders – and create more victims in the process.

Justice and public safety are not cheap. Many things in life worth having are not cheap either.

Sensible Sentencing Trust considers prisons a great investment in public safety and the important principle of punishment for criminal offending.

Certainly, the taxpayer funds spent on prisons, police, the courts and justice system generally are significant in absolute terms.  Thankfully, these costs are spread thinly on all taxpayers.  It costs around a dollar per day per citizen to run the existing prison system.  That seems a good investment to us.  Every person imprisoned has harmed someone in a serious way and some form of punishment goes some way to make it right.

There is also the counter-factual that many people don’t consider.  Investment in law and order is critical for a prosperous society.  Without it, and where people and property are not safe, will see lower investment, lower growth, fewer services provided and ultimately a lower standard of living.  In other words, it is likely more expensive to a society to not invest in prisons and public safety.

Sensible Sentencing Trust strongly supports efforts to achieve rehabilitation.  We believe in giving people the opportunity to reform and better themselves.  However, we don’t believe it is in anyone’s interest to give endless chances to commit criminal offences free of consequences.  Poor behaviour should result in consequences – that’s part of real life.  We are also well aware that rehabilitation is often a popular ideal – it is quite difficult to achieve in practice.  Many serious criminals ‘rehabilitate’ by simply ‘ageing out’ (what most of us refer to as ‘growing up’) of criminal offending after years in and out of prison and creating many victims along the way.

Despite rehabilitation’s limitations, Sensible Sentencing Trust believes it is important to give prisoners opportunities to better themselves – both for their sake and everyone else’s.

Yes, it does.  But an offender impaired by alcohol, drugs, mental health issues or similar will not be deterred as strongly as they would be in the cold light of day with all their faculties. We recognise that. 

Some crimes, such as some murders, are committed in a state of heightened emotion or mental impairment and may not be deterred as strongly as pre-meditated crimes such as burglaries.

Think deterrence doesn’t work?  What do you think would happen if there was no penalty for murder?  Chaos.  Anarchy.  And a lot of deaths.  No country has decriminalised murder - for obvious reasons.

Deterrence is a heavily studied area of criminal justice and there are hotly debated positions on both sides.  It’s a complex area with a fair amount of nuance.

No.  We hold a strong view, which we express regularly to politicians and other decision makers, that sentencing for white-collar or financial crimes is much too soft and should be significantly lengthened.

The impact of financial crime on victims can be devastating and often reflects a pattern of repeated deception – rather than a one-time error or lapse in judgment.  Hence, like other offences such as burglary, many cases of financial crime are highly premeditated in nature.  In our view this should see much tougher sentencing in this area.

We would be delighted to hear from any MP who would like to work with us to draft a Members Bill on this issue.

In the first instance, you should seek advice from a lawyer, and other agencies such as: 

Manaaki Tāngata | Victim Support

Court services for victims 1 - Hearts & Minds

A number of Victim Advocates operate around New Zealand. You may wish to make contact with one. Sensible Sentencing Trust does not endorse or recommend any particular Victim Advocates. 

Limited support or advice for victims on specific cases is dependent on the availability of our volunteers, whom we don’t have enough of.