Reflecting on Dame Sian’s speech

Unlike many who commented on the Chief Justice’s recent speech, the editorials in the HoS and the SST take a more balanced view.

The HoS noting:-

Taking “Blameless Babes” as the working title for her speech, Dame Sian remarked ruefully that she supposed she would have to alter it because it is bound to be misrepresented along the lines of ‘Chief Justice says murderers are blameless babes’.”

‘And so it has proven. Dame Sian’s critics immediately depicted her speech as calling for the opening of prison doors so that prisoners disinclined to remain could wander out.

A considerable degree of either failure to read what was said or knee jerk tub thumping was apparent in reported comments. Including from Simon Power who should know better and from David Garrett who presumably does not know any better any way.

The SST piece is not on line, but noted:-

SST Editorial re Chief Justice's speech 19 July

And boy has she had a kicking from a number of quarters. Let us remember when Dame Sian talks about victims , her own brother-in-law was murdered, so she has some personal direct experience as well as her legal career.

Part of the the problem is that we have  vociferous and politically influential lobby groups who ‘man the barricades’ to defend society’s rights to lock up evermore people, despite the fact that this does not seem to act as a deterrent. In fact it seems to Adam that many of these pro-punishment people are often the same ones who wish to repeal the so called ‘anti-smacking’ law.

The SST then noted how some in National then suggested that somehow Dame Sian was crossing a constitutional line. Well Adam agrees with the editorial writer who wrote:-

SST Editorial re Chief Justice's Speech 19 July

Commonsense needs to come into play here. The Chief Justice is not promoting revolution. She is suggesting that a more rational debate needs to take place and an assessment made as to whether we are following an appropriate line which will yield worthwhile societal benefits in the future.

The Editorial then discussed other sensible elements within the speech in question, which can be found here.. For once the SST_Editorial_19_July is worth reading in full and Adam recommends that you do so.

The HoS went on to comment:-

It is safe to say that if there were any gaps in the Chief Justice’s understanding of the constitutional role of the judiciary, they would not be quickly plugged by advice from Garrett.

Yet the speech itself shows that, so far from advising, much less directing, anybody, the country’s top judge has instead offered a thoughtful assessment of current penal policy.

In finding that it falls short of the ideal, she is in good company, which must include both Garrett and Power – although she would likely have a different explanation for the malaise. Where Garrett and his supporters take the approach that we should pursue with ever greater vigour punitive policies that are manifestly not working, Dame Sian chooses to ask whether, as a society, we should rethink what we are doing.

She did so in the mildest and most thoughtful terms

So why have the politico’s run for cover. Adam suggests it is the pernicious influence of the hang’em, shoot’em and flog’em brigade which has exercised influence with adverse impact over politicians of all shades for some considerable time now.

In this matter we deserve better form our politicians, much much better. We require leadership not pandering to the base instincts of the mob often riled up by people who should know better.

So that is why Adam thinks that it is time to heed the closing remarks of the HoS editorial :-

Faced with a prison system half of whose graduates will reoffend within five years (and the recidivism rate is higher among those who serve long terms); and with the Government moving to double-bunking and locking prisoners up in converted shipping containers; we would be less than sensible if we did not consider alternatives to simply imposing harsher sentences. Dame Sian, who had a distinguished legal career behind her before Simon Power left primary school, has every right to express her thoughts on the matter. And we have every right to expect that our lawmakers read and closely consider what she has to say rather than rule her evidence inadmissible.

Let us have a rational debate on what we should be doing and where we should be spending our money. Yes, let us lock up the vicious thugs who need locking up, but at the same time look again at what the options might be for other offenders.

Adam thinks that in looking at this matter the comments of Fran O’Sullivan in her column in Saturday’s Herald should be taken into account as well.

Adam found these opening comments in Ms O’Sullivan’s column of particular relevance:-

Chief Justice Sian Elias issues a damning indictment on the vengeful nature of successive governmental sentencing policies.

Elias has done the body politic – and New Zealand – a favour by putting on record her deep disquiet over what she calls the “repersonalisation of the criminal justice system”.

She obviously feels that making victims the centre of attention in court trials has damaged the rights of the accused to a fair trial and a fair and rational sentence where guilt is proven.

All too often one has the impression that some in our society would happily throw a rope over the nearest tree so as to provide closure for the victims.Now is the time for leadership not for acceding to an all too prevalent lynch mob mentality.

In writing this post Adam is all too aware that there will be many who disagree. That is their right. Then let us debate the matter. Let us not reduce this to the level of ever harsher punishment to satisfy some primeval urge for revenge.

UPDATE #1:- MacDoctor posts here ‘Blameless Babes’