CrimeNZ - Justice for Victims

Mission Statement and Goals

Victims before criminals - When a conflict of interests arises between the rights of a victim and a criminal, the victims rights takes precedence even when, in its fulfillment, the rights of the criminal may not only be ignored but actively infringed upon.

Justice before legalism - The law should stand to serve justice not hinder it. If the mere application of law undermines apparent justice, then the legal principle should be considered subservient to the dictates of justice.

Victims of crime eligible for legal aid assistance to pursue justice.

A complete overhaul of the criminal justice system - The justice system to be predicated on the three prioritized goals of crime reduction and prevention; siding with victims of crime and the law-abiding; and the re-instatement of punishment, shame, and retribution as legitimate means to deter re-offending.

Assets of those punishable by imprisonment for a term of three years or longer are to be seized for victim support unless proven to be lawfully obtained.

Everyone accused and charged of crime will have a limited right to legal aid - those found guilty will have the full cost of their legal aid bill as a debt to be paid and/or worked off during their prison term except and unless, they have pleaded guilty.

Fundamental changes to the criminal justice system to be assented by referendum.

Tagging is unsightly wilful damage to someone else’s property and needs to be dealt with quickly.

My favourite solution is to catch taggers, make them wear a pair of bright pink overalls with ‘TAGGER’ emblazoned across their back and make them paint over their handiwork.

The Government’s approach, however – a Bill that bans the sale of spray-cans to under-18s and fine taggers $2,000 – is a Clayton’s solution that won’t work; it is nothing more than an attempt to appear to look tough and be doing something about a problem that worries your opponent’s core voting block.

When I spoke in Parliament against the first reading of the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill – aka the Tagging Bill – I had to wonder whether any MPs supporting this Bill had bothered to look at the existing Summary Offences Act 1981 to see what the law currently is.

If they had, they would have seen that sections 11 and 33 already cover wilful damage. Section 11 says:
“Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who intentionally — (a) Damages any property; or (b) Sets on fire any tree or other vegetation.”

And Section 33 states that:
“Every person is liable to a fine not exceeding $200 who, without the consent of the owner or occupier,—(a) Affixes any placard, banner, poster, or other material bearing any writing or pictorial representation to any structure, or to or from any tree; or (b) Writes, paints, sprays, or etches on, or otherwise marks, any structure.”

The only change, then, is that this new Bill increases the fine from $200-$2,000.

The fact is, we already have a law that doesn’t work: that no one under 18 can purchase alcohol. Everybody knows this doesn’t work – yet Labour is now trying to ban the sale of spray-cans to under-18s: what makes anyone think that this will work where the sale of alcohol restrictions have failed?

The second issue is that of fines. Under this Bill tagging fines will rise to $2,000, and businesses selling spray-cans to under-18s will face a $1,500 fine. Justice Minister Annette King said before Christmas that fines had no any impact on behaviour with reference to speeding and traffic offences. She talked about the number of young people who built up fine after fine, didn’t pay any of them because they couldn’t afford to, and then later on had those fines completely wiped. We will see the same outcome with fines on taggers.

I’m not saying tagging isn’t a serious problem; it’s an assault on property, unsightly, and often leads to other criminal activity. But if we are to make some impact on this problem we must police the current law routinely and, at the same time, look at what causes the behaviour and what we can do about it in a positive way.

Contributing factors to tagging behaviour include: teenage rebellion, antisocial sentiment, and a component of gang association. For some, it can be a cry for help or attention. Often there is peer-group pressure – sometimes supported by movie and game media storylines and culture. Truancy and poor school achievement are also factors. Banning the sale of spray-cans to under-18s won’t address these or change the behaviour of a single young person.

Rather than putting this ridiculous Bill before Parliament, the Justice Minister could have suggested supporting a wide range of youth activities and mentoring programmes that have been shown to work — especially those introduced by passionate individuals, like Project K.
The Government could also have taken the opportunity to influence behaviour in a positive way. Street art competitions – with cash prizes at local, regional, and national levels, and automatic permanent disqualification for those caught tagging (as we do with drug cheats at the Olympics) – would have been a novel idea.

It’s no secret the justice system has many problems, but there are ways of improving things for victims and communities – while offering some hope of rehabilitation offenders. These could include:

A 24/7 court system dealing with problems as they arise – instead of making people wait months, or even years to come before the courts – would be a huge improvement.

Fines could carry alternative jail sentences – people are instructed to pay their fine at the time; if they can’t, they go to jail – sending a stronger message than a $2,000 fine that might or might not have to be paid one day.

Mandatory non-association orders in the Youth Court, enforceable by the alternative or suspended sentence given at the same time.

Police diversion available on approved programmes for up to 12 weeks. Third strike truants must complete one of these programmes or be referred on to the Youth Court.