The “three strikes” Bill passed its third reading tonight at approximately 5.30 pm. As expected Labour, the Greens and the Maori Party opposed it, with Jim Anderton mysteriously not casting a vote.

I think it is accurate to describe “three strikes” as the biggest change in our criminal law since the abolition of capital punishment in 1961. It would be inaccurate to say that abolition of cp was the beginning of the significant increase in crime which we are still experiencing today. It was not until the mid 1970′s that both our homicide and violent crime rate per 100,000 of population – which allows us to compare New York with New Plymouth – began an exponential increase.  I think it is accurate to say though that this is the first marked change of direction in our criminal law since 1961.

It was actually rather sad hearing the arguments – such as they were - from the other side.  It probably added to the debate that the more hysterical voices in the Labour Party – Clayton Cosgrove and Lianne Dalziel among them – for some reason had business elsewhere, and thus were unable to “contribute” to the debate.  From those opposition members who were in the House, there were the somewhat plaintive claims that Labour “really does care” about victims, and continuing attempts to taint our Bill with the excesses of similar legislation in California.

Anyone who has made any kind of effort to honestly compare the two laws would quickly realise that New Zealand’s law represents a considerable refinement of its Californian ancestor. Whereas it is undeniable that the California law – at least originally – led to injustices we would not want to see here, New Zealand’s law has benefited from the lessons learned in that state and others in the US.

Quite simply, under New Zealand’s three strikes law it is impossible for people to go to jail for 25 years for stealing a pizza – or indeed for stealing anything else. The “strike” offences in New Zealand are all listed in a schedule to the Bill; if it is not on the list, it cannot be a “strike”. Secondly, there is no 25 years to life sentence – regardless of the offence.  The bill does provide for Life Without Parole (LWOP) – but only for offenders whose third “strike” is murder, or as a sentencing option in the worst cases of murder, regardless of an offender’s criminal history.

In all cases at strike three, judicial discretion is maintained – Judges need not impose a sentence without parole if it would be “manifestly unjust” to do so. Those who have observed that this is a high standard to reach are correct – offenders avoiding the mandatory third strike sentence because it is “manifestly unjust” will indeed be the exception and not the rule.

This is a law with massive public support. 94% of those who made submissions on the Bill were supportive of it. It unashamedly puts the rights of victims ahead of the rights of offenders. Contrary to the belief of those on the left, criminals are not all stupid. Prison inmates throughout the country will be aware of the effects of this Bill by tomorrow morning. Even if they don’t respond to the clear signal the bill gives when they get out, it will work by incapacitation. Persons in jail for long sentences are not able to hurt members of the public.

It is a great day for ordinary decent people who simply wish to live their lives without molestation from those who wish to do them harm.