Sweeping changes have recently been made to punishment practices in many western
nations. A number of these have reflected punitive, penal populism. The purpose
of this essay is to examine recent reforms in New Zealand which reflect a
philosophy of “bifurcation” with respect to the punishment
of offenders. Harsher treatment is introduced with respect to the more serious
forms of offending, while at the same time other elements of the Sentencing Act
represent a more rational and moderate approach to sentencing reform. The
Sentencing Act 2002 introduces a number of changes to the sentencing process in
New Zealand. This article reviews some of the more important elements of the
Act, beginning with the legislated statement of the purposes and principles of
sentencing. The statutory purposes include the goals of rehabilitation,
deterrence and incapacitation that have been cited in similar statements in
other jurisdictions. The author explores the significance of various components
of the Sentencing Act in light of experience in other jurisdictions such as
Canada and England and Wales. In a number of areas the New Zealand statute
offers a superior alternative to statutory language adopted in other
countries.
BakerE. Clarkson, C. (2002). Making
punishments work? An evaluation of the Halliday Report on sentencing in
England and Wales. Criminal Law Review,
February.
3.
BittleS. (2000). Newspaper coverage of hate crime: A
case study. Ottawa:
Department of Justice Canada.
4.
BraithwaiteJ. (1999). Restorative justice:
Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. In
Tonry M.MorrisN. (Eds.), Crime and justice: A review of
research. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
5.
BrodeurJ.P. (2002). On the sentencing of
Aboriginal Offenders: A reaction to Stenning and Roberts.
Saskatchewan Law Review, 65,
45–52.
6.
BrownM.YoungW. (2000). Recent trends in sentencing
and penal policy in New Zealand. International
Criminal Justice Review, 10,
1–31.
7.
ChetwinA,WaldegraveT.SimonsenK. (2000). Speaking about cultural background
at sentencing: Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.
Wellington: Ministry of
Justice.
8.
Clark, M.
(2002). Longer but not tougher? A New Zealand
perspective on punitiveness, politicization and populism.
Unpublished manuscript, Wellington,
Victoria University of
Wellington.
9.
ClarksonC.MorganR. (1995). The politics of sentencing
reform. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
10.
DalyK. (2003). Mind the gap: Restorative Justice
in theory and practice. In von HirschA.RobertsJ.V.BottomsA.RoachK.SchiffM. (Eds.), Restorative and criminal
justice.Oxford: Hart
Publishing.
11.
Department of Corrections. (2001) About Time: Turning people away
from a life of crime and reducing re-offending.
Wellington:Department of
Corrections. Retrieved from http://corrections.govt.nz/objects/ps/33/633.url.pdf
12.
DiosoR.DoobA.N. (2001). An analysis of public
support for special consideration of Aboriginal offenders at
sentencing. Canadian Journal of Criminology,
43405 – 412.
13.
FreibergA. Ross, S. (1999). Sentencing reform and
penal change: The Victorian experience.
Sydney: the Federation
Press.
14.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and
social order in contemporary society.
Chicago: Chicago University
Press.
15.
Globe and Mail. (2002).A messy prescription for
native offenders. Globe and
MailAugust 12, p. A12.
16.
Government of New Zealand. (2001). Sentencing and Parole
Reform Bill meets with approval. Justice
Matters, 11, p. 1.
HaslipS. (2000). Aboriginal sentencing reform
in Canada - Prospects for success: Standing tall with both feet planted
firmly in the air. Murdoch University Electronic
Journal of Law, 7,
1–21.
20.
Home Office.(2001). Making punishments work: Report of
a review of the sentencing framework for England and Wales.
London: Home
Office.
Ministry of Justice. (1997). Sentencing policy and guidance: A
discussion paper. Wellington:
New Zealand Ministry of Justice.
23.
Ministry of Justice. (2001). Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill
explanatory note.Retrieved from.
24.
Ministry of Justice. (2002). Reforming the Criminal Justice
System. Sentencing Act 2002.
Wellington: New Zealand Ministry
of Justice.
25.
MorganN. (2002). A Sentencing Matrix for
Western Australia: Accountability and Transparency or Smoke and
Mirrors? In TataC.HuttonN. (Eds.), Sentencing and Society: International
Perspectives(pp. 65–89).
Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing
Limited.
26.
MorrisA.MaxwellG. (2003). Restorative justice in New
Zealand. In von HirschA.RobertsJ.V.BottomsARoachK.SchiffM. (Eds.), Restorative and criminal
justice.Oxford: Hart
Publishing.
27.
National Party of New Zealand. (2002). Safer Communities, Safer Society -
National's Law and Order policy. Retrieved from http://www.national.org.nz
PalmerA. (2000). Foreword. In ChetwinA.WaldgraveT.SimonsenK.. Speaking about cultural background at sentencing:
Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.Wellington: Ministry of
Justice.
30.
PrattJ. (2002). Punishment and
civilization. London:
Sage.
31.
PrattJ.TreacherP. (1988). Law and order and the 1987
New Zealand Election. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 21253–268.
32.
R. v Gladue [1999]
1. S.C.R. 688.
33.
R. v Lundy (2002,
August 13) CA 106-02, CA 137-02.
34.
R. v Miloszewski [1999]
B.C.J. No 2710 (Prov, Ct.).
35.
R. v Watson [1999]
3 NZLR 257.
36.
RoachK. (1999). Changing punishment at the
turn of the century: Restorative justice on the rise.
Canadian Journal of Criminology,
42(1),
249–280.
37.
RobertsJ.V. (1996). Disproportionate harm: An analysis
of hate crime statistics. Ottawa:
Department of Justice Canada.
38.
RobertsJ.V. (2002a). Alchemy in sentencing: An
analysis of sentencing reform proposals in England and
Wales. Punishment and Society,
4, 445–462.
39.
RobertsJ.V. (2002b). The pluses and minuses of custody:
Analysing sentencing reform proposals in England and Wales.
Ottawa: Department of Justice
Canada.
40.
RobertsJ.V.ColeD. (Eds.) (1999). Making sense of
sentencing. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
41.
RobertsJ.V.GaborT. (in press). The Impact of Conditional Sentencing:
Decarceration and Widening of the Net.Canadian Criminal Law Review.
RobertsJ.V.HastingsA. (2001). Sentencing in cases of
hate-motivated crime: An analysis of the impact of sub-paragraph 718.2(a)(i)
of the Criminal Code. Queen's Law Journal,
27,
93–128.
44.
RobertsJ.V.RoachK. (2003). Restorative justice: Riding
the circle line from retributive to restorative justice. In
von HirschA.RobertsJ.V.BottomsA.E.RoachK.SchiffM. (Eds.), Restorative and criminal justice.
Oxford: Hart
Publishing.
45.
RobertsJ.V.StalansL.S.IndermaurD.HoughM. (2003). Penal populism and public opinion:
Lessons from five countries. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
46.
RobertsJ.V.StenningP. (2002). The sentencing of Aboriginal
offenders: A rejoinder. Saskatchewan Law
Review, 65,
75–96.
47.
RobertsJ.V.von HirschA. (1998). Conditional Sentencing and
the Fundamental Principle of Proportionality in Sentencing.
Criminal Reports, 10,
222–231.
48.
RobertsJ.V.von HirschA.(1999). Evaluating the statement of purpose
and principle. In Making sense of sentencing (pp.
48–62). Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
49.
RudinJ.RoachK. (2002). Broken promises: A response
to Stenning and Roberts' “Empty
Promises”. Saskatchewan Law Review,
65,
3–34.
50.
Secretary of State.(2002). Justice for all.
London: Cabinet
Office.
51.
Sensible Sentencing Trust. (2002). Sensible sentencing: For a safe
crime free New Zealand. Retrieved from http://safe-nz.org.nz.
52.
StenningP.RobertsJ.V. (2001). Empty promises: Parliament,
the Supreme Court and the sentencing Aboriginal offenders.
Saskatchewan Law Review, 64,
137–168.
53.
SpierP.(2000). Conviction and sentencing of
offenders in New Zealand: 1989 to 1998.
Wellington: Ministry of
Justice.
54.
ThorpT. (1997). Sentencing and punishment in
New Zealand, 1981–1993. In TonryM.HatlestadK. (Eds.) Sentencing reform in overcrowded times. A
comparative perspective (pp. 163–167).
New York: Oxford University
Press.
55.
TonryM.(1996). Sentencing matters.
New York: Oxford University
Press.
56.
TonryM.HatlestadK. Eds. (1997). Sentencing reform in
overcrowded times. A comparative perspective. New
York: Oxford University
Press.
57.
TriggsS.(1998). From crime to sentence: trends in
criminal justice, 1986 to 1996.
Wellington: Ministry of
Justice.
58.
US Sentencing Commission. (1992). Guidelines manual.
Washington, DC:
Author
59.
von HirschA.(1993). Censure and sanctions.
Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
60.
von HirschA.RobertsJ.V.BottomsA.E.RoachK.SchiffM. (Eds.) (in press). Restorative and criminal
justice.Oxford: Hart
Publishing.
61.
YoungW.(2000). New Research on speaking
about cultural background at sentencing. Ministry of
Justice Media Release, Wednesday 20 December,
2000.
