THREE STRIKES LAW STUPID, SAYS EXPERT

The "three strikes" law could see some of the worst criminals still
eligible for parole depending on the order in which they commit their
crimes, a criminologist has said.

The law, which National and Act have agreed to pass, opens the way for
huge inconsistencies in sentencing, said Professor Greg Newbold.

The University of Canterbury criminologist said an offender who
committed two assaults and a murder - in that order - would be locked
up for life, because the maximum sentence for murder was life
imprisonment.

But the new law would mean that someone who committed murder and then
two assaults would only serve the maximum penalty for assault, a
sentence length that varies depending on the attack and not a life
sentence.

Police Minister Judith Collins last night defended the law, saying
most murderers were given life sentences in which they were eventually
allowed to apply for parole, which carried set conditions.

"If the offender later reoffends when on parole then they will most
likely be recalled to prison to continue to serve their life sentence
for the murder [first strike] as they have breached the terms of their
parole."

But Professor Newbold said a prisoner would still be able to apply for
parole within 12 months of being recalled to prison.

He said the law was "stupid" and lacked credibility and predicted it
would be challenged by defence lawyers.

Under the three strikes law, once an offender is convicted of a third
serious offence the judge will have to impose the maximum sentence for
the crime.

The offender will not be eligible for parole while serving time for
their third offence.

Professor Newbold believed sentences should be left to the discretion
of the judge and the release date of prisoners left to the discretion
of the Parole Board.

He said prisons will be made even more dangerous by the three-strikes
law and prison guards could find themselves targets.

"If you're doing life without parole, why wouldn't you kill a prison
officer? What's to stop you? What would you lose by killing a prison
officer?"

Howard League for Penal Reform president Peter Williams, QC, said some
criminals with a record may kill in order to avoid being caught by
police.

"If people realise that if they are going to be arrested, they are
going to be in there [prison] for their natural life, there may be
circumstances where they are going to kill," Mr Williams said.

Mr Williams said prison officers would have few deterrents when
dealing with prisoners serving life sentences once the law went through.

"I wouldn't envy the lot of prison officers keeping these people," Mr
Williams said.

Mrs Collins said preventive detention would be retained.

Preventive detention would give offenders the opportunity to be
released after a shorter term than life without parole and the policy
gave the worst repeat offenders certainty that the sentence they
received would be harsh, Mrs Collins said.