An excellent example of the need for Three Strikes

In the Taranaki Daily News

A man who kicked his pregnant partner in the stomach “like a rugby ball” screaming he wanted to kill the baby has been sent to jail. Toani Mark James, 24, appeared in the New Plymouth District Court yesterday to be sentenced on charges of wounding with intent, assault with intent to injure and breaking a protection order. Judge Allan Roberts said James was a recidivist violent offender who had numerous convictions for assaulting his partner.

If Three Strikes had been introduced earlier, his partner may never have had to endure this serious assault.

James was sentenced to two years in prison and given a first strike warning.

In Family First’s submission on the Three Strikes legislation, we actually argued that previous violent offences should be aggregated

Three or less violent offences within the past 10 years would count as one strike. Four or more violent offences within the past 10 years would count as two strikes. Recidivist violent offenders should not be given a clean slate. Families must be protected.

It’s difficult to see how anyone could argue against Three Strikes legislation when you see these types of cases.


3 comments for “An excellent example of the need for Three Strikes

  1. Massoud
    14 May 2011 at 7:45 pm

    It’s not difficult at all to argue against it. You could argue against on many fronts. First of all, the poor unfortunate woman who was kicked by Mr.James quite possibly would have ended getting kicked by someone else sooner or later, Three Strikes or not. There is no shortage of Mr.James out there, and no shortage of women who seek out partners like that.

    I could argue against it on the issue of “mission creep”. 40 “crimes” are covered by it already, most laughably beastiality. How long before, and easy will it be now, to add other “crimes” to it with a simple stroke of the unfeeling bureaucratic pen?

    Thirdly, a close examination of the Three Strikes legislation reveals it is,essentially, window-dressing, that serves the useful political purpose of allowing the Government to appear “tough on crime”.This is a pre-requisite in our increasingly revengeful-minded society for any Party to be elected. It is easier to do these hollow things than actually address the core failure of society and ask yourself why we need more prisons, more police, and more laws. The ultimate irony is that people still feel just as insecure.

    I could also argue against it because, logically, why stop at Three Strikes? Why not just execute anyone caught doing any violent crime? Why not just abort criminal’s children before they’re born? Why not just imprison the known, statistical demograph of where violent criminals come from? Borrow some pages from Hitler’s textbook.

    Of course I’m being facetitious. But this is my point: revenge based attitudes, which, all huffing and puffing aside about justice, the Three Strikes legislation is, does nothing to address the core issues of why our society is wobbling. That,I maintain, is something our mendacious minded, pathologically-pursueing, power hungrey politicians, will never do.

  2. Bob
    14 May 2011 at 8:29 pm

    It’s not about “increasingly revengeful-minded society”

    The purpose of this law would be to warn career criminals to find a new job or else they will become career inmates! If a repeat offender is incapacitated, then the crime reduction will be great.

    This law should allow police, prosecutors and judges to intervene early enough to save lives instead of waiting for a violent offender to victimise another person. Supporters of this bill do not want ‘revenge’ – they simply wish to be able to live unmolested and not in the fear of violent criminals. This is called ‘justice.’

    The consequences for persistent offending should be sufficiently severe to ensure that the benefits of the crime are outweighed by the punishment. Research studies conclude that chronic offenders often commit crimes at a high rate. Identifying these offenders and isolating them from the rest of society would substantially reduce crime.

  3. BJ
    16 May 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Given the recent discussion on Parental notification, how does society reconcile being on side with this Judges findings, whilst accommodating a law that allows for a State funded School Counsellor to take a teenager for an abortion?
    Our confused extremes as to our attitude to the unborn are akin to a nation wide bipolar disorder.
    Thankfully the transparency afforded by technology ( Scans etc) means this duplicity is coming to an end

Comments are closed.