October 2024
Tirohanga Whānui | Overview
The New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services (NZCCSS) welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill. Although we understand the need to consider and support victims of crime, we strongly feel that the approaches proposed in this bill unfairly disadvantage Māori and youth and hinder rehabilitation in prisoners and result in unfairly harsh sentencing at a significant cost to taxpayers.
Our main points are:
Item One
There has been insufficient time provided for proper consultation regarding the impacts the proposed changes will have on Māori who are likely to be disproportionately represented both in the number of people in prison and the victims of crime.
Item Two
The proposed changes to the Act will result in judiciaries no longer being able to affectively tailor
sentencing to the circumstances of the particular crime and may result in unfairly harsh sentencing.
Item Three
The proposed changes are not backed by evidence-based research which indicates that extending sentences does not deter people from committing crimes.
Item Four
The current proposed budget to cover these changes does not appear to have considered the Ministry of Justice estimates of the increase in prisoners as a result of these legislation changes.
Taunakitanga | Recommendations
We raise the following points and recommendations for consideration:
Item One
As with other recent legislative changes to the Sentencing Act (the reintroduction of 3 strikes), the proposed changes in this reform will disproportionately impact Māori. Although Māori make up 37% of people proceeded against by police in Aotearoa, they currently represent 52% of prisoners. Despite this overrepresentation, the urgency in which this legislation has been pushed through has resulted in insufficient time for Māori to be consulted about these changes (Ministry of Justice, 2024).
Additionally, although prioritisation of victims has been used as one of the major justifications of these legislative changes there appears to have been insufficient consideration of the impacts of these changes on victims. Māori represent 36.9% of victims but there has been insufficient time given to allow for adequate consultation (Ministry of Justice, 2024).
Recommendation 1:
We suggest further consultation with Māori is needed to consider the impact of the legislative changes, including Māori victims of crime, before any changes to legislation can be implemented.
Item Two
The separation of powers in Aotearoa is meant to ensure that parliament is kept separate from the judiciary. However, the legislative changes proposed in this reform will result in parliament limiting the judiciaries’ ability to perform their role and have judicial discretion. Capping sentence reductions limit judges’ ability to consider the underlying circumstances that led to a crime taking place, which in turn may lead to unfairly harsh sentencing.
“Broad limitations on judicial discretion and blanket limitations on sentence discounts are inconsistent with the purposes and principles of sentencing, which require that the sentencing Judge takes account of all the relevant circumstances of a case. Some of the planned law changes also present potential inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), for example due to the risk of disproportionately severe penalties.”
(Ministry of Justice, 2024)
Recommendation 2:
We raise particular concern around how this will impact the sentencing of youth. The introduction of the cap on youth sentence reductions poses a significant concern due to the impact that long sentences may have at such a crucial time of development. Adolescence is a period of significant brain development and the treatment youth, who have committed a crime, receive in this developmental stage could have significant impacts not just on the likelihood of them reoffending but also whether they are able to grow into contributing members of society.
We suggest that status quo is maintained, and the judiciary continues to have the power to make decisions on sentencing reductions without restrictive limitations being imposed by parliament.
Item Three
The justification from the government for the proposed changes to the Sentencing Act highlight a need to protect victims and reduce the rate of offending. Although we value the need to have a justice system which considers the outcomes for victims, these changes in legislation focus on only one role of prisons, punishment. However, prisons have many roles in society, with punishment being one that is short lived and does not consider the future of this individuals. Additional focus needs to be placed on rehabilitation of prisoners and preparing for life outside prison to ensure that they are able to acclimate back into society.
Numerous aspects of these legislative changes, including capping sentence discounts and cumulative sentencing are likely to result in lengthened incarceration times. Although deterring people from committing crimes is an admirable goal, evidence indicates that this approach is unlikely to be successful. Research indicates that threats of longer prison sentences and harsher penalties are insufficient to deter people from committing crimes (Petrich et al, 2021). Additionally extended periods in prison may actually increase the likelihood of reoffending and increase the prospect of more serious crimes being committed in future (Cullen et al, 2011). As such, these changes are likely to lead to increases in re-offending and additional problems for future generations.
Recommendation 3:
We suggest evidence-based decision making is needed when reforming the Sentencing Act to ensure that we are not creating worsening crime rates.
Item Four
The proposed reform has been budgeted by the government to cost an estimated $152.7 million over 10 years. These figures are based on an increase of 1,350 prisoners over this time period. The Ministry of Justice highlight in the Regulatory Impact Statement that they were unable to accurately estimate costs due to the urgency under which these changes have been considered (Ministry of Justice, 2024). It is also noted that they estimate that with these changes will result in upwards of 10,000 more people being sentenced. Additionally, the other changes to the Sentencing Act (reinstatement of 3 strikes) and how they play into the changes proposed in this reform have not been costed. As such it is safe to assume that the real costs of this reform are likely to be much greater than those previously estimated.
Recommendation 4:
We suggest further calculation of the budget is needed, with consideration of the actual costs of this reform.
Tohutoro kua tohua | Selected references
Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism: The High Cost of Ignoring Science. The Prison Journal, 91(3_suppl), 48S-65S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511415224
Ministry of Justice. (2024). Regulatory Impact Statement: Amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Sentencing-ReformRIS-and-SAR.pdf
Petrich, D. M., Pratt, T. C., Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2021). Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review. Crime and Justice, 50(1). doi:10.1086/715100
Ingoa whakapā | Contact Name
Nikki Hurst
Dr. Katie Schraders