Why we supported Three Strikes

This tragic case is why Family First supported the 3 Strikes legislation! Under three strikes, his last conviction would have been for the maximum sentence without parole. He would not have been free in 2008 to be able to kill Austin Hemmings.

Hemmings’ murderer had killed before
NZ Herald Nov 2, 2010
The man who murdered Good Samaritan Austin Hemmings in central Auckland spent eight years in an Australian jail for stabbing and killing his estranged girlfriend. He was also jailed in New Zealand on three separate occasions for knife incidents dating back to 1987.

READ our Submission


4 comments for “Why we supported Three Strikes

  1. 5 November 2010 at 3:50 pm

    This is simply not true.

    If three strikes had been the law in NZ for the last 50 years, Pauesi Leofa Brown would only have had one strike at the time of this murder. His conviction for wounding with intent to injure is the only offence previously committed that would have resulted in a strike warning.

  2. Bob
    5 November 2010 at 10:24 pm

    Good point Graeme. It seems that despite the violent nature of a number of previous offences, he wouldn’t necessarily have received ‘strikes’ for them. All the more reason we asked for a lower threshhold to catch all violent offences – to prevent this situation. We also asked for ‘P’ offences to be included.

  3. 6 November 2010 at 6:25 pm

    You’ll have to be careful with that … the standard list of violent offences (and it was used in ACT’s original bill) includes assault on a child (i.e. the smacking offence). Be careful what you wish for!

  4. kowtow
    8 November 2010 at 5:19 pm

    All the more reason for that travesty ,the smacking amendment to be repealed and a bit of common sense to be restored to this society.
    If the judiciary were doing their job in the first place we wouldn’t have needed 3 strikes. ie if it’s serious enough you go away for a looooooong time. Like the law originally intended.

Comments are closed.