innocent victim against the evil attacker (see Chapter One), it was why theCorrections Department put a young man in a van with a dangerous <strong>and</strong> violentprisoner. One article in The Press, for example, reported: ‘[R]egardless of anyuncertainty over the rules, it defies belief that anyone could have thought itappropriate to place a 17yearold rem<strong>and</strong> prisoner in the same compartment as twoadults, one of whom was classified as a dangerous criminal’ ("Protecting prisoners,"2006: Par. 6). In these respects, the case shifted press interest away from reformingprison <strong>and</strong> reducing the prison population, to the way in which the government, <strong>and</strong>its penal bureaucracy, was unable to protect the innocent from predatory strangers.Instead of letting prisoners out, it provoked dem<strong>and</strong>s for a United States style ‘ThreeStrikes’ law, which the Sensible Sentencing Trust argued would have saved Ashleyfrom his attacker. This can be seen in the following claim made by McVicar:If New Zeal<strong>and</strong> had a “Three Strikes” law Liam Ashley <strong>and</strong> manyother victims would still be alive today [<strong>and</strong>] it is Parliament <strong>and</strong>weak spineless politicians that have Liam Ashley’s blood on theirh<strong>and</strong>s.(McVicar, 2006c: Par. 1)This point was pushed further by David Garrett, then legal advisor for the SensibleSentencing Trust, who in 2008 became a member of the political party Act NewZeal<strong>and</strong>. He stated in a column in the New Zeal<strong>and</strong> Herald:The “fix” … is simple <strong>and</strong> obvious: a New Zeal<strong>and</strong> “three strikes”system, in which a “strike” is defined not as a felony, but an offenceof violence carrying a sentence of two or more years in prison. If wehad a system like that, Liam Ashley <strong>and</strong> countless other victimswould be alive today.(Garrett, 2006: Par. 1516)The crystallisation of the sc<strong>and</strong>al by the media once again legitimised publicdem<strong>and</strong>s for harsher sentencing practices, putting immense pressure on thegovernment to respond to them, rather than being able to pursue its own EffectiveInterventions strategies.90
The case of Graeme BurtonThe second event came to a head in December <strong>and</strong> January 2006/2007 when themedia focused its attention on Graeme Burton – an offender serving a life sentencefor murder since 1992 36 . Burton was released on parole in July 2006 by the ParoleBoard after he was perceived as no risk to the community (New Zeal<strong>and</strong> ParoleBoard, 2006). He failed to appear at several appointments with his probation officer(some through no fault of his own, for details see Elsworth, 2007), the last of whichwould have seen him recalled to prison for noncompliance with the terms of hisparole licence. Burton then went on to murder another man in January 2007 beforebeing captured after a shootout with the police 37 . The media began to release reportson the dangerous fugitive whom the public should fear, consequently attracting awide public interest in the case. Initially, reports included: ‘Armed, dangerous <strong>and</strong>back on the run’ (Watt, 2007: Headline); ‘a convicted killer … left a trail ofbloodshed in his wake’ (Lane, 2007: 1); ‘<strong>By</strong>st<strong>and</strong>ers shot as fugitive flees police’("<strong>By</strong>st<strong>and</strong>ers shot," 2007: Headline). After his capture it was again the government<strong>and</strong> its bureaucracies that came under attack, with one article reporting that ‘[t]hefinger of blame over the h<strong>and</strong>ling of Burton’s parole turned on the department [ofCorrections] yesterday after it confirmed he breached his conditions two weeks in arow …’ (Kay, 2007: 3). Another quoted National MP Simon Power who believed itwas ‘typical of a justice system that too often lets the public down’ (Stevens, 2007:1). This type of reporting infers blame on specific departments, leading to publicconcerns about safety <strong>and</strong> the government’s failure to guarantee this.Yet, as was noted in a follow up report on the Parole Board’s decisionmaking, ‘[t]hedegree of media <strong>and</strong> public attention the tragic aftermath of Mr. Burton’s release hasgenerated is a reflection of the relative infrequency of the Board’s decisions endingso badly’ (Johnson & Ogloff, 2007: Par. 4). Reports on the Parole Board’s earlyrelease of Graeme Burton (Johnson & Ogloff, 2007; Le Petit, 2007) as well as thereport into the management of his case (Elsworth, 2007) acknowledged thatappropriate decisions had been made (while suggesting that changes could be made36From Burton’s parole release date, on 10 July 2006, through to the enactment of the ParoleAmendment Act, on 31 July 2007, there were 154 newspaper articles referring to Graeme Burton, 77in The New Zeal<strong>and</strong> Herald <strong>and</strong> 77 in The Dominion Post.37In the end, Burton received a minimum nonparole period of 26 years in prison; the third longestsentence to be h<strong>and</strong>ed out by a judge in New Zeal<strong>and</strong> history ("Burton given third longest," 2007).91
- Page 3 and 4:
AcknowledgementsWriting this thesis
- Page 5 and 6:
ContentsAbstract ..................
- Page 7 and 8:
IntroductionIn September 2007, New
- Page 9 and 10:
Thereafter, the Labourled coaliti
- Page 11 and 12:
Postwar Security and Penalwelfa
- Page 13 and 14:
the exterior of electoral politics,
- Page 15 and 16:
social conditions, towards that whi
- Page 17 and 18:
penal policy development where they
- Page 19 and 20:
implementation of this legislation.
- Page 21 and 22:
increasingly aware of crime, gainin
- Page 23 and 24:
immigration was considered a threat
- Page 25 and 26:
in agricultural exports, particular
- Page 27 and 28:
The time would seem to be appropria
- Page 29 and 30:
In keeping crime out of the public
- Page 31 and 32:
The Labour Party’s response to th
- Page 33 and 34:
across a multitude of family househ
- Page 35 and 36:
Changes in New Zealand mediaThe dif
- Page 37 and 38:
dominant feature of New Zealand soc
- Page 39 and 40: Despite its manifest contradictions
- Page 41 and 42: Governments and their civil servant
- Page 43 and 44: The Victims Task Force believed tha
- Page 45 and 46: eferendum into legislation, motivat
- Page 47 and 48: [New Zealand was] one of the safest
- Page 49 and 50: governments in the hope that ‘suc
- Page 51 and 52: McVicar paints of himself as the
- Page 53 and 54: that New Zealanders have been expos
- Page 55 and 56: This combination of circumstances c
- Page 57 and 58: Sympathy, empathy, commiseration an
- Page 59 and 60: [h]ad not risen from the ‘victims
- Page 61 and 62: illicit a response from the communi
- Page 63 and 64: Reform Bill). The Trust made submis
- Page 65 and 66: The willingness by Opposition MPs t
- Page 67 and 68: I remind [the National Party] that
- Page 69 and 70: However, the Labourled government
- Page 71 and 72: 6). While these opposing parties po
- Page 73 and 74: One development in particular incre
- Page 75 and 76: policymaking 32 . From 2000 to 2006
- Page 77 and 78: had removed suspended sentences as
- Page 79 and 80: Chapter Four:Resistance to Penal Po
- Page 81 and 82: 2004: 44). The situation worsened i
- Page 83 and 84: were designed to address New Zealan
- Page 85 and 86: $3.341 million annually from 2009/2
- Page 87 and 88: organisation, was interested in bur
- Page 89: Because of the capability of the me
- Page 93 and 94: ‘parole should be a privilege, no
- Page 95 and 96: given the difficulties in measureme
- Page 97 and 98: package to prioritise this issue. H
- Page 99 and 100: emained insecure and overtly puniti
- Page 101 and 102: the end of its tenure. As a result,
- Page 103 and 104: The thesis has explained and analys
- Page 105 and 106: main determinants are addressed. As
- Page 107 and 108: Atkinson, J. (2002). Structures of
- Page 109 and 110: Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008b
- Page 111 and 112: Cullen, P., & Lloyd, C. (1991). Lob
- Page 113 and 114: Department of Statistics (N.Z) (199
- Page 115 and 116: Hall, G., & O'Driscoll, S. (2002).
- Page 117 and 118: Johnson, R. J., & Ogloff, J. R. P.
- Page 119 and 120: Maguire, M. (2002). Crime data and
- Page 121 and 122: Ministry of Justice (2002a). Senten
- Page 123 and 124: New Zealand Parliament (1993a). Cri
- Page 125 and 126: asket.co.nz.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/searc
- Page 127 and 128: O'Conner, D. (2006). Effective Inte
- Page 129 and 130: Prisoners in line for waist restrai
- Page 131 and 132: Sentencing Amendment Act. (2007). R
- Page 133 and 134: http://www.stats.govt.nz/products
- Page 135 and 136: contours of New Zealand (pp. 1111