THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1987. Repeated offending

Press, 15 July 1987, Page 20

THE PRESS WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 1987. Repeated offending

The community, quite properly, has expressed outrage about the abduction and murder of a six-year-old girl in Christchurch late last year. That outrage has been compounded, now the offender has been sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, by the knowledge that the guilty man had a long record of sexual offences committed against young girls. The question is being asked with increasing vigour: what can be done to prevent repeated offending by criminals who are not deterred by earlier convictions and punishments? The particular horror surrounding the death of Louisa Damodran should not obscure the fact that repeated offending is not a problem peculiar to sexual offenders. The Ministerial Committee of Inquiry into Violence in its report this year, described repeated offending as an important issue. It quoted evidence from the Police Department that while the number of new offenders — for all crimes — has remained stable, the number of offenders who return to crime had increased rapidly.

For the last 10 years the number of new offenders each year has been, on average, rather less than 17,000. The number of repeat offenders had increased to the point that, by 1985, about 40,000 recidivists came to the attention of the police each year. The police have suggested that some mechanism must be found to break the cycle of repeated offending, whether for burglary, or rape, or whatever. The Ministerial Committee agreed, but said it was beyond its competence to suggest what the mechanism should be. Two mechanisms are being suggested with vigour by groups in the community: the death penalty, and very long sentences that are actually served by offenders without the right to be considered for parole. The introduction of the death sentence would be a change of such magnitude that the question is best not considered when feeling is running high. The question of longer sentences has already been addressed by Parliament. When the Violent Offenders Act comes into force on August 1, people sentenced to life imprisonment will not be eligible for parole until they have served 10 years in jail. At present they are eligible after seven years.

Longer sentences for violent offences do something to satisfy the community’s desire to punish particularly despicable crimes. In themselves, however, such sentences do not necessarily act as a deterrent to offences; nor do they necessarily mean that a criminal will be less likely to offend again. The longer an offender is in jail, the longer the community is free from the threat of further offences. The possibility still remains that such a prisoner will commit new offences on release.

There is evidence, however, that many offenders grow out of their criminal behaviour. People over 30, for instance, are much less likely than younger people to offend. That suggests the community would be a safer place if young, violent criminals were locked up early in their criminal careers, at least until they turned 30. Would the community accept such punishments being applied for what, in many instances, might be relatively minor first offences? Were the courts required to impose long sentences solely to keep people out of the community’s way, the established notion of maximum sentences for crimes would have to be modified. A new element would have to be introduced so that imprisonment was not just a punishment but a means of keeping offenders at bay. The best hope of reducing the likelihood of tragedies such as the death of Louisa Damodran must lie in better early assessment of the offenders who come before the courts, and who seem most likely to be at risk of further offending. Evidence to demonstrate the point needs to be put before the courts as vigorously as possible. The courts cannot be expected to impose very long sentences for the sake of prevention unless they have sound information that the prisoner is likely to offend again. Previous offences may be sufficient evidence.

A system needs to be devised so that such prisoners, on eventual release, can be kept under better supervision and direction. Any system that offered hope of preventing further offending by those guilty of the most violent crimes would also have wide application to those whose offences are less serious, but whose prospect of offending again remains equally high.