Sensible - really?

From a correspondent, and the link from Sunday Star Times:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/7933892/Does-sentencing-trust-cross-a-line

It’s the bit at the end that I am particularly disturbed by – Sophie Elliot’s mother talking about vengeance. This is lynch mob stuff again.

We need more clarity about the purpose of sentencing. It has multiple purposes: punishment, removal of dangerous people from the public, rehabilitation. Nothing, but nothing, can undo a violent crime (as opposed to other crimes: theft can be repaid and so-on). But most violent crimes are committed by young males, and they grow out of it, usually, and can go on to be valuable members of society.

I think we need appropriate sentencing, where perpetrators’ punishments fit the crimes and they can learn from it. Examples?

Graffiti artists should be made to clean graffiti off – bloody hard work – and given an outlet for their ‘artistic’ or destructive impulses.

Drunk drivers should be made to work in some way with the aftermath of accidents involving drunk driving – clearing up, car or site repair, assisting with those disabled by such things.

Someone like Ewen MacDonald could be made to work with, say, the SPCA, helping with injured and mistreated animals.

In these circumstances, the convicts would be surrounded by those dealing with the aftermath of crimes similar to their own. They would see the disapproval, and learn about the damage it does, and, I believe, learn some deeper lessons about what it is to be a good person.

This is basic child psychology. If a child does something naughty and is told off or sent to their room, they are punished and just get resentful, and if they don’t do it again it’s for fear of being punished. If they are made to put things right, they learn, and don’t do it again because they have learned why it is wrong. One episode of drawing on the wall followed by a bit of hard work cleaning it off and perhaps repainting the wall is a lesson that lasts. 

Some very interesting comment to which I would like to add  later about the denials featuring in the response to questions of the SST, but firstly about this comment by Kim Workman.

It seems that SST sensible modelled the trappings of 'Christie's Law' from something similar in Britain. No trouble with using other models, but it also raises the spectre of McVicar waiting for tragedies to happen on which he can launch further designs of his intentions. Because McVicar didn't deny Kim Workman's allegation it can probably be accepted as true. What isn't said, but can be implied, is that Garth was waiting for such a tragedy that befell Christie to give fruition to a longer term plan.

"Garth has always been looking for something that looks like Christie's Law - to match the success of Sarah's Law, in Britain," says the Trust's long-time opponent, Kim Workman, a cop turned justice reformer.

"But when they produced the T-shirts and the hats and were selling them . . . it was just so tawdry. It was like they were marketing the whole incident."

Workman says the family's emotional response is understandable. His overriding concern is that victims like the Marceaus become trapped in their grief by the Trust and are left unable to ever reach peace.

Further along Workman says that evidence shows that if people lose sight of social change, and if it does for punitive purposes and of vengeance and retribution that this actually impedes people's hearing. More confirming evidence on that later from a SST proponent.

A drug and alcohol counsellor Roger Brooking called the Trusts's actions 'disgusting' and emotional blackmail that McVicar uses to attract media and public attention to push his get tough agenda. For her own part Tracey Marceau denies this and says...

"I think the Trust helped us deal with the situation and give us strength to do what we've done. I'm quite sure the people that criticise him are only in it for their own agendas."

However, she doesn't point out what she thinks those agendas may be. Although Roger Brooking's comment about Garth's 'get tough agenda' may give a clue that the 'common' enemy is first of all offenders, then secondly anybody who does't agree with the Trusts 'universal' views as to what should happen to them. In fact his 'deputy' Ruth Money spells it out...

No matter how you cut up the figures, crime is growing and is swelling, so more people are aware of victimisation."

As the article goes on to show, and as most people are aware, crime rates are falling - in NZ's case quite markedly to a 25 year below. This raises the question about the honesty of the campaign, why does Ruth Money claim a growing crime rate when evidence shows otherwise? This is the same person who was recently quoted as wanted to help and guide Judges, going by her own performance her 'guidance' would be toward perpetuating myth in order to achieve harsher prison sentences and prison conditions. That is displayed again as the Money and McVicar team continue on unblinkingly with McVicar claiming that the Trust never approach victims. When the reporter gives two instances where they have Money, despite the reversal of another SST claim, simply 'clarifies' that particular approaches were "It's not like I was saying this is what the Trust is about, come and join us," 

I see. So an approach is not an approach if it's 'not like I was saying' mmmh. The differences between what the SST advertise and what they do continue to be at odds according to evidence recorded in the article. First of all they claim they don't drag people to the platform (speech dias) which is abruptly contradicted by Priest John Howell who gives an example of exactly the metaphorical dragging of a victim to the 'platform' to give a speech. A strange connotation arises between platforms and the gallows in my mind - obvious something Garth and Ruth are unable to see. In the particular case John Howell spoke about he mentioned huge SST rallies in the town where the crime happened and how the deceased victim's parents chose not to speak although an Aunt did  who has since stopped speaking at Trust events.

A little further along the reporter, Kristy Johnston, reports or makes the following resounding comment....Perhaps the real problem in the justice debate is that, in disagreeing with McVicar, it can look like you're attacking a victim's right to be angry or to get better help.
A repeat of what various other people have said, certainly true. For example who would publicly voice any surprise about a nude calendar of those impacted by crime. It is possibly the first for the world, and may not be seen by a wider audience in the same way hoped for by it's promoters.

I think the article brilliantly demonstrates the points made by Workman, Brooking and others. But it is the voices of Garth and Ruth that reveal that they deliberately mislead the public and no doubt there own members. I guess most people would agree that any relationship that starts out with deceit is flawed. All of the things SST take issue with, Judges, Lawyers and the Courts they display themselves. The concept of corruption or 'people out of touch' is not demonstrated in their arguments, but their own dishonesty is making it very hard not to concur with those interviewed speaking about vulnerable people being taken advantage of and having their state of grieving and loss both aggravated and extended. The very idea of vengeance as I mentioned above is confirmed in the words of a Trust proponent Lesley Elliot...

Lesley admits being in a group like the Trust does "incite you a little bit more", but said it wasn't morbid when the group got together and told their stories each year at the group's annual conference. She says for the first two or three years she didn't feel vengeful, but feels more as time goes on.

"I start to think more about what we've lost. Sophie would have been 27 this year - that sort of makes me feel vengeful. He's got his life and Sophie doesn't have hers. So I guess the critics [of the Trust] are right but in another way, who's going to make the changes if you're not getting people who have been there, done that?"

I admire her for her honesty, particularly where she points out that what would have been milestones for her lost daughter make her feel vengeful. I like to think that the words of the opponents of SST mentioned in the article, all of whom are specialists in dealing with victims and some with offenders alike - show that Lesley and others like her would have a heck of a lot to contribute in a positive of embracing healing over hate.

As for the forthright words and common sense of my correspondent captured above.  'One episode of drawing on the wall followed by a bit of hard work cleaning it off and perhaps repainting the wall is a lesson that lasts.' I believe they reflect societal concerns, not only about basic right and wrong and remedies, but a release into understanding that hating is a power given away in increments of loss of love from the soul, but that healing, self-healing, with help if necessary, builds love of oneself - and for the one lost to show, that love finally overcame all, including grief.