Pretty much no difference if you kill one or two people, apart from the apology you get from the judge

After a case last month where a Judge indulged in verbal gymnastics to avoid giving the mandatory sentence of life in prison without parole (LWOP) to a second strike murderer,  today saw a District Court Judge seeming to apologise for sentencing a man who ran over his partner to almost four years without parole – as required by the three strikes law for a second “strike’ offence.“We have noticed that female Judges at both District and High Court level seem to struggle with a simple law that a farmer like me finds very easy to understand” said Sensible Sentencing founder Garth McVicar.

“Here is a 43 year old man convicted of   a second “strike” offence only months after receiving a non-custodial sentence for his first” McVicar said.

“One would have thought the Judge’s sympathies would have been with Nathan Kenneth Boniface’s female victim rather than with an offender who is exactly the kind of person the three strikes law was intended to target” McVicar said.

“Boniface was treated leniently at strike one  by being given a ‘community detention’ sentence for wounding with reckless disregard. He showed his contempt for that leniency by committing arguably a worse offence – running over a woman with a car – just months later” said McVicar.

“If media reports are correct, Judge Jane Farish said nothing about Boniface’s victims, but rather expressed concern about what would happen to him on his release from his  sentence – imprisonment for 46 months for both the first and second strike offences.”

“When are Judges going to ‘get’ that offenders like Boniface have a choice about whether they go to jail or not? No-one is going to make this guy commit another offence when he is released. That’s entirely up to him” McVicar said.

“In the meantime, this thug is exactly where he needs to be – behind bars for almost four years, during which time innocent members of the public don’t have to worry about him.”

The judiciary are still deliberately blocking the the intent of the Three Strikes law.

And while we’re at it, perhaps we should start looking at dropping concurrent sentences for Three Strikes offenses.  You really can just go around and do serious damage, even take lives, and the justice system happily gives you discount.

  • Graeme Edgeler

    The judiciary are still deliberately blocking the the intent of the Three Strikes law.

    This is hardly a block. The judge gave the required three strikes sentence. No parole.

    • Brian_Smaller

      I think the point is that the judge showed so much concern for the offender and if she had some other option, would have used to to give a lesser sentence.

      • biscuit barrel

        The story about the judges full comments is limited. Cant find it in general news reports. Naturally Judges have to explain their sentence choices

      • peterwn

        The only wriggle room the judge had was the ‘manifestly unjust’ let-out and she recognized that it was not going to wash. It will be interesting to see what happens when the first ‘third strike’ sentencing occurs although AFAIK all the ‘second strike’ offenders are still behind bars and it may be a wee while before there is a ‘third strike’ sentencing.

  • biscuit barrel

    has this just happened or is it old news ?

    “Violent thug deserves four year sentence, not sympathy
    Thursday, 4 December 2014, 10:35 am
    Press Release: Sensible Sentencing Trust
    Violent thug deserves four year sentence, not sympathy from a Judge
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1412/S00050/violent-thug-deserves-four-year-sentence-not-sympathy.htm
    Exactly the same person yet byline is Dec 2014 ?
    I thought it was a bit strange as I thought McVicar had stepped back from the SST public role.

51%