Three Strikes Law Is About The Public, Not Offender

Media Release 22 May 2018
Family First NZ is slamming a decision to bypass the effect of the Three Strikes Law, labeling it as flawed and dangerous. Dylyn Davis brutally attacked and murdered his partner before leaving her to die on their garage floor, but has avoided life imprisonment without parole in the Hamilton High Court today – despite being issued three strikes within four years. The attack makes distressing reading.

“Three strikes within such a short period, and a victim who has lost their life – not just 20 years. Are we serious about a zero-tolerance approach to violence of this grotesque nature? The third-strike sentence is not ‘manifestly unjust or grossly disproportionate’ in this case. That actually describes the actions of the offender towards the victim,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“The best and most obvious way to protect women, children, and the elderly from repeat violent offenders is to incapacitate the offenders. You can’t commit crimes against families if you’re in prison. The purpose of this three-step law has been to warn ‘career criminals’ to find a new job or else they will become ‘career inmates’. They are effectively being given two chances to stop their violent behaviour.”

“Most New Zealanders would rightly argue that in this case, it was still two chances too many.”

“The Three Strikes law reinforces the “It’s Not OK” message by taking victimisations seriously. A repeated ‘slap on the wrist’ for violence undermines our efforts to reduce tolerance for violence and the career choice of repeat violent offenders.”

“Supporters of a Three Strikes law do not want ‘revenge’ – they simply wish to be able to live unmolested and not in the fear of repeat violent criminals. This is called ‘justice.’ This law is a welcome step to protect families, and to encourage offenders to change their ways urgently.”

“Weakening the effect – or removing the law, as proposed by the Government – is based on a flawed ‘rights’ ideology rather than good practice which protects the most vulnerable in our society.”
ENDS