DOING THE TIME

Commit the crime and do your time? That is not necessarily so if you are
high-profile drug user Darren McDonald or the nation's youngest convicted
killer, Bailey Junior Kurariki writes The Press in an editorial.

Both now have the prospect of being dealt the "get out of jail" card of
home detention. Such cases have brought to the surface simmering concern
that this justice initiative is being used too liberally.

When a previous government introduced home detention, most New Zealanders
would have been prepared to give the system a chance. They thought that
applicants would have offended at the low end of the sentencing scale; that
community safety would be maintained through assiduous risk assessment
processes; and that diligent electronic monitoring would guard against
straying. Above all, the system would restrain growth in prison musters and
avoid creating jail-hardened criminals out of minor offenders.

McDonald's case raises some disturbing questions. Sentenced to eight months
prison on ecstasy and methamphetamine charges, he was given leave to apply
for home detention and is out on bail until his application is heard. The
reason given for deferring McDonald's sentence was that the former
announcer was a high-profile drug addict and would be a target for
jailhouse dealers.

That is nonsensical. To start with, it suggests that, despite efforts to
curb smuggling of drugs into prisons, their availability remains high ­ or
at least higher than in the community. And it also raises the issue of
whether there are two standards of justice depending on a drug user's
status in society. Given the grave public concern over methamphetamine,
there should be but one status for those given any prison term for offences
involving this drug. And that is the status of prisoner.

Kurariki is in a different position. As he has already served part of his
seven-year manslaughter sentence, a law change last year means he can apply
for home detention because he will be eligible for parole in January. It is
understandable that many can not fathom how someone who committed so
horrific a crime could receive home detention so quickly. Yet Kurariki is
not alone. Critics rightly point to other instances of criminals convicted
of serious offences being permitted home detention after last year's law
change.

The type or length of sentence in our justice system must balance a number
of factors: society's odium for a particular crime; the need to keep the
community safe from certain offenders; and rehabilitation. It is quite true
that home detention, whether at the front or back end of a prison sentence,
should offer a better prospect for rehabilitation and community integration
than a prison cell. But the trend towards this being given to serious
offenders suggests that the balance has swung too far away from the idea of
punishment.

Evident also are a host of other anomalies in the home detention system. It
is only proper that family members and others living in the same house must
approve an offender getting home detention. But the neighbours do not have
to be told due to privacy considerations. This must be all the more
disturbing in the case of offenders whose crimes have been committed in or
against their own community.

It is true that only a minority of offenders breach home detention
conditions, despite the frequent allegations of offenders being spotted at
pubs instead of approved venues. Yet even that minority suggests either
that detention orders are made to inappropriate offenders or that the
resources to monitor offenders are insufficient. Neither explanation is
acceptable.

Debate rages over whether home detention is a soft option. Defenders of the
sentence claim it is not an easy punishment to be at liberty, but only as
far as the front gate. But it is still natural for victims to feel outrage
knowing that offenders have access to all the comforts of home, and might
be able to work or collect the dole, play sport, have approved friends
visit, or do a weekly shop. And that outrage is justifiably greater when
this lifestyle is out of proportion to the seriousness of the crime.

The case for front-end home detention for low-level offenders as an
alternative to prison is still sound, provided they are carefully chosen
and adequately monitored. But this trend of serious offenders leaving
prison early for the living room sofa demands a swift rethink. As the Norm
Withers referendum demonstrated, the New Zealand public is still adamant
that the punishment must fully fit the crime.