Justice

While "An eye for an eye" was a huge step forward at the time, introducing a sense of proportionality to justice, most civilised societies have moved beyond this and no longer demand vengeance-based justice. Giving the state a monopoly on the legitimate use of force is key to reducing overall levels of violence in society, delegating the dispensing of justice to the government rather than allowing individuals to enforce their own justice that risks spiralling into a cycle of vengeance. This remains true so long as the government does not transform into a tyranny where justice is used to enforce the will of the leaders, and to prevent this it is crucial for the rule of law to apply equally to the government and the governed alike.

To be truly just, a justice system must balance mercy and judgement. Mercy is required to allow individuals to recover from mistakes, giving them the opportunity to prove they can change and become productive members of society. Judgement is required to prevent the truly malevolent from taking advantage of the mercy available and wreaking havoc with no consequences.

There are three primary objectives of a modern justice system:

1. To deter crime by causing potential offenders to fear the consequences of their actions

2. To support victims of crime by providing restitution whenever practical

3. To exclude from society those most likely to commit crimes (based on their past behaviour)

Police:

One of the two ways to strengthen the deterrence effect of the justice system is to increase the chances of being caught (the other being severer punishments). This is the primary role of the police force, and I propose that they be given the resources required to investigate every reported crime to the limit of their abilities. Given that less than half of reported crime is currently investigated, and even less results in a successful prosecution, this seems like a daunting goal. However, the increased focus of police on even the smallest crimes would likely drop overall crime rates dramatically in the long-term, and savings from the reduction in damage caused by crime would dwarf the extra funding given to police.

To encourage innovation, each police district would be given a degree of autonomy and offered bonuses for good performance. To prevent them gaming the system by under-reporting or over-stating crime, the performance metrics would be based on independent public surveys of those living in the district and their opinions about the level of crime and the job the police have been doing. Performance would be measured against past results for the district rather than absolute results, giving high crime areas the chance to compete for bonuses, and encouraging police officers to work in districts with the most opportunities for improvement.

Fiscal Impact: I have allowed for an increase from $2.7 to $3.2 billion in the police budget to give them the resources they need.

Courts:

New Zealand's court system is currently plagued by delays, with cases regularly taking six months or more to be heard. This leaves victims waiting longer for resolution, and leaves criminals on the streets for longer, increasing the chances of further offending. The court system should be given the resources required to bring these waiting times down, with a target of 90% of cases being resolved within 4 weeks of the police being ready to prosecute. As crime returns to lower levels, the workload of the courts would likely return to current levels.

To meet the different objectives of the justice system, I propose that sentencing of crimes be split into two parts. Each conviction would result in two sentences being issued; the first involving fines or community service that attempts to make the offender reimburse the victims for any damage caused, and the second involving detaining serious or repeat offenders to prevent them from committing further crimes. Depending on the circumstances of the crime and the history of the offender, these sentences could be severe for one and lenient for the other, giving judges flexibility to meet the sometimes-contradictory objectives. Both parts of the sentences would have a deterrent effect.

The first part of a sentence would be a combination of fines and community service, and the objective would be to make the offender rectify any damage they caused. Whether the actions were intentional or accidental would not be considered for this part of the sentence. The rectification of damage could include restoring property to its original condition, paying for an appropriate replacement of property, and reimbursing victims for inconvenience, loss of income, or suffering. To prevent the erosion of free speech, the causing of offence would not be counted as suffering. Fines could also be used to recover the cost of police and court time. If an offender's labour is an option for restoring property, the offender could be given a choice between that or a fine (provided that the victim was satisfied). If an offender is unable to pay the fines required to rectify the damage, they could have their property confiscated and/or costs deducted from future earnings (including from their UBI).

The second part of a sentence would involve detaining offenders, with the objective of minimising the chance of reoffending. To ensure that all crimes (including petty crime) have possible detention as a deterrent, a demerit system would be introduced. Every convicted offense would result in a minimum of one demerit, and judges could increase the number of demerits issued depending on the severity and intentionality of the crime. Demerits would drop off at the rate of one per year, and if at any time an offender has accumulated 20 or more demerits, they would be detained until their balance drops below 20 again. Each category of crime would have a minimum number of demerits, with the most serious crimes such as murder having a minimum of 30 demerits, resulting in a minimum detention of 10 years.

To incentivise parents to take responsibility for their children's actions, youth offenders (up to age 17) would be sentenced using the same system, but any fines or community services would be imposed on the child's parents rather than on the offending child. The parents would be responsible for imposing what they view as a responsible punishment on the child. Demerits would still be attached to youth offenders, but if they exceed the limit, they would be detained in separate youth facilities until they reach the age of 18, when they would be transferred to an adult facility.

Fiscal Impact: I estimate that addition fines to recover court costs would save $896 million.