Another violent criminal behind bars with a strike on the record

The opposition love criminals, they support them.

Why do I say that, well, it’s easy, they are soft on crime and opposed the three strikes law.

The latest example of scumbag thugs who should be permanently in jail but aren’t has recently played out in the courts.

The Sensible Sentencing trust explains:

A recent Christchurch case reminds us all what a wonderfully effective and discriminating tool the “three strikes” law promoted by Sensible Sentencing Trust, and passed into law in 2010 by the then National – ACT government is proving to be.

After a criminal career comprising 45 previous convictions – nine of them for violence – a Judge has finally put Shane Archbold behind bars for 5 1/2 years, and given him a “three strikes” warning for an aggravated burglary  during which Archold told the victim he was going to “take his eye out” with a tyre iron.

“This guy is an excellent example of why ‘three strikes’ was so sorely needed” said Sensible Sentencing Trust founder Garth McVicar.

“During his 45 conviction criminal career – a quarter of which were for violence – this man has no doubt served a number of prison sentences and been through the revolving door  at the front of the prison that was the criminal justice system. Were it not for three strikes,  at age 36 he could easily have gone on to rack up another 45 convictions, and continued to be let out on parole part way through each pathetic sentence” McVicar said.  

“He has just been rudely reminded – in the form of a serious sentence and a  first strike warning – that the rules have changed. He gets parole for this one, and will no doubt be back on the streets in a couple of years. However if he commits another strike offence upon release he will be sent back to prison to serve his full sentence –  no parole – and if he then commits a third such offence, he will go to jail for a very long time” said McVicar.

“Thankfully the days of mongrels like this racking up multiple convictions for serious violence are over. The three strikes regime ensures that on the third and any subsequent  such conviction violent thugs like this are off to jail for the maximum sentence, to be served without parole”.

There is a problem though…Labour has promised to repeal three strikes, showing their crim cuddling ethos.

“This is the law that the Labour Party has said it will repeal if it is elected” said McVicar. “A law with massive public support which targets ONLY  seriously violent offenders, and is working exactly as intended. There are no horror stories about poor lads stealing chocolate bars being sent to jail for long periods because that is impossible under New Zealand’s form of ‘three strikes’ ” McVicar said

“Andrew Little has been nailing his colours to the mast on a number of things in recent days. New Zealanders deserve to know if he is as blinkered as his predecessors, and whether he still intends to repeal three strikes and allow violent offenders like Archbold to continue thumbing their noses at the law and serving short prison sentences which they laugh at.” McVicar said.

“If he needs any information on how three strikes is working positively to make New Zealand a safer place, Sensible Sentencing and its legal advisors will meet with him anytime he likes” said McVicar.

Will Andrew Little have the stones to remove labour’s crim friendly policies? Or will he just continue to stay out of touch with middle New Zealand?

I suspect they won’t change…and National can roll in to the next election saying Labour is soft on crime.

 

– SST

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • oldmanNZ

    Next thing labour may do, is give prisoners the right to vote and more “human” rights.

  • RightofSingapore

    Assuming one is not a foetus, the Left’s most dangerous belief is their support for criminals. Anything that clamps down on criminals the Left oppose, if they were merely stupid, they would get the odd thing right, but they don’t.

  • Rocket

    Arise Sir Garth McVicar.
    JK, get on to this man as candidate for Northland in by-election and then make him a truly meaningful spokesman for crime & punishment.

    • El Diablo

      The problem with doing that is the left and MSM in general will be able to then just dismiss him as another right-wing National Party stooge. I think he is more effective in his current role.

      • Rocket

        Both my suggestions would enhance the mana of the SST.
        Mr. McVicar is not a one man band; after all, there are many other right thinking (pun intended) people working for the trust on behalf of victims, perhaps even you & me.
        I could not care less what the MSM and crim-hugging lefties think.

    • Adios Africa

      Well said Rocket. Garth McVicar richly deserves a knighthood and a place in parliament. This won’t happen given he dared to name and shame the crap judges senior Nat MPs like to cuddle.

  • Skydog

    Dwelling burglaries should also be a strike offence. Dirty rotten scum bags coming into our homes. The three strikes policy is why I voted act in 2008.

    • H. Upmann

      Burglary was specifically targeted by ACT in the 2014 election as a crime to be treated as being in the same level as violent crime. They were pilloried by MSM and the left parties in general for this and did not get much love from National either.

      All crime should be 3 strikes…. and 3 is frequently too many.

      Labour and the left in general love criminals and defend them as poor and innocent misunderstood victims.

  • Hard1

    There is one major flaw with the 3 strike legislation. It should be 2 strikes.

  • peterwn

    Anyone know whether there are any two strike offenders who have been released from prison? There will be howls if one of those is sentenced on strike 3 – though hopefully it will not happen.

  • sandalwood789

    Yep – another ACT policy proving its worth (along with charter schools).

  • I realise that my views on this topic will not be popular in this forum but I do actually have some experience in this area and therefore consider myself qualified to comment.

    “Crime” as a phenomenon is vastly different to what many people imagine. As a list day at any District Court in the country will quickly confirm, most crime is low level — drunk driving, driving while disqualified, low level thefts, breaches of community work, trespass, domestic violence (male assaults female), disorderly behaviour, low level drug offences (mainly of possession and cultivation — offences I do not believe should actually be criminal matters at all) and common assault.

    Although there is much concern over “serious violent crime” there is relatively little of it. When the “three strikes” legislation was enacted, a fairly blunt and simple approach was taken — any offence involving violence which had a maximum penalty of seven years or more imprisonment was to be a strike offence. Accordingly, there are some quite arbitrary distinctions — injuring with intent to injure is not a strike offence as it carries a maximum of five years imprisonment, unlike wounding with intent to injure, which carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment.

    It is not uncommon for plea bargaining around this point so that a charge of wounding with intent to injure might be downgraded to injuring with intent to injure and a guilty plea entered.

    The goals of sentencing are legislative, set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The approach to be taken in sentencing is also defined in the Sentencing Act. The problem with administrative mandatory penalties is that no account can be taken of the enormous variation between cases, particularly sexual cases. Indecent assault is a good example. It carries a maximum of seven years imprisonment and can be committed by as little as an unwelcome kiss. Should someone really receive a strike warning and, if facing a third strike, receive seven years’ imprisonment for something like that? I would be applying for a discharge without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act for a client caught in a situation such as this. That introduces distortion into the law where in order to ameliorate the rigour of the administrative regime, a person ends up without a conviction in circumstances where a conviction would have been entirely appropriate.

    This is why sentencing is best left in the hands of the Courts — the judges have access to a wide variety of information concerning the offence, the offender, whether or not that person has been responsive, or is likely to be responsive to rehabilitative programmes, the gravity of the particular offence, whether there are any psychological or psychiatric complications and whether there are family or other supports. It is worth bearing in mind that there is evidence that rehabilitative programmes (usually delivered through a sentence of supervision or alongside a community sentence) are effective whereas there is a wealth of evidence that prison sentences are not effective in rehabilitating or deterring offenders who find themselves marginalised from society upon their eventual release and locked into a vicious cycle of recidivist offending.

    Populism such as that promoted by the Sensible Sentencing Trust is not based upon proper research and should not inform public policy and legislation. The “three strikes” provisions ought to be repealed.

25%