On Tuesday the conviction of the first “strike” offender was reported as front page news.  Without in any way minimising the offence, I was pleased the conviction was for a lower end indecent assault – the victim was not physically harmed – rather than a vicious beating or a murder.

The defendant had been on bail for an assault on his mother when he indecently assaulted his friend’s partner. Both offences were committed under the influence of alcohol. The man’s lawyer told the Judge that all of the man’s offending was alcohol related. In convicting the man and giving the warning required under the “three strikes” legislation, the Judge told the man he would now have to “tread very carefully.”

This case is actually a perfect example of how the legislation is intended to work.  By definition – since he has been offending under the influence of alcohol for 16 years – the criminal justice system has not deterred this man. At the age of 32, statistically he has some years of offending in front of him unless he changes his ways.  He now has the clearest signal that he must address the alcohol abuse that appears the root cause of his offending, or face ever lengthier prison sentences.

If he does not address his problem, is it not entirely right and just that he face incarceration, possibly for a very long time?  What if his next crime is indecent assault on a young girl? What if it is drunken driving causing injury – or worse?  How many chances should we give this man before indecent assault escalates to rape, or drunken driving turns into manslaughter by car?

A criminal barrister friend tells me all this clients are well aware of the provisions of the new law. One of their first questions to him is how the law affects them, particularly with regard to their previous convictions.  Yes readers, most crimes are committed by repeat offenders.

My friend – who doesn’t like ”three strikes” – tells me that in his view the best chance the law has of deterring his clients is frequent publicity of convictions, and the resulting sentences. Dealing as he does with criminals every day, my friend has a much higher opinion of his clients’ reasoning abilities than left wing politicians do.

The first “strike” conviction was front page news – at least down here in Wellington. Hopefully the media will continue to find “strike” convictions newsworthy – and in publicising them maximise the chances of the Act serving as a deterrent.