David Garrett

This would bring about a whole raft of issues. I will only mention one. Three Strikes policy is supposed to act as a deterrent. The intention is that individuals will modify their actions to prevent being prosecuted for a third strike. They would be warned at the time of each prosecution what the result of another prosectution would mean.

If... Read More 'Three Strikes' were retrospective, none of the current criminals would have been warned of the consequences of their actions and therefore would not have been able to modify their behavour to prevent commiting a strike offence.

No, you cannot predict with 100 percent certainty that second strikers will be deterred from a third offence. However, several US studies are cited in the commentary to the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (Bill) which show a greater than 20 percent deterrent effect.

Perhaps more importantly, the dire predictions of killing witnesses and ... Read Morepolicemen to avoid arrest that have been made in the media here, were also made in California prior to their three strikes law being introduced.

Neither of those predictions have come to pass.

Thanks for your response. I am closer to being sold on the idea. The absence of evidence and media coverage does not mean that witnesses have not been killed. Having said that, witnesses have been killed in the USA before and after three-strikes. One has to be careful of drawing causation.

The comparison with the USA is not really comparing like-with-like as some states have catch-all three-strikes for multiple felonies, not just the high level violence your bill is proposing.

I had one question, it is my understanding that three separate incidents of "check fraud," counts for the three strikes invokation (ie 3 x fraud checks of over $100.01). How do we ensure that the punishment fits the crime.

Fraud is not a strike offence. ACT's 'Three Strikes' policy is only for serious violent offences which include: murder, attempted murder, grievous bodily harm, serious firearms offences, rape, and a range of sexual offences on children and young people. This policy is targeted at the worst offenders, the people that we want to keep off the streets as they pose a great risk to our society.

Thanks David, that was my understanding of the proposed three-strikes policy. One problem I envisage is criminals who have two-strikes are when commiting their third offence enter the "nothing-to-lose scenario"or "no-win-situation" and then the criminal will do anything to evade capture - this could result in an escalation of violence for third ... Read Moreoffences. My worry, therefore, is that perhaps "three-strikes" policy would have the opposite effect of your expectations. I would appreciate your thoughts.

David, you did well last night. It would not be an easy job. I was pleased to see you oppose making legitimate users of pseudoephedrine1-based medications suffer or pay extra for something that may have little affect on the manufacture of P.

At present when I get pseudoephedrine1-based medication at the chemist I have to show my driver’s licence and this goes on a central database to detect people going from chemist to chemist. I understand that not all chemists do this so I would assume this is a voluntary scheme.

I would suggest that ACT propose that this scheme be expanded so it is compulsory for all chemists. Criminal are not all stupid. They find out which chemists do not check for ID and the word gets around. ... Read More

Before restricting legitimate users of cold medication are penalised this scheme should be tried and monitored.

Let us come down heavy on the small number of purchasers of cold medication who sell their purchase before we penalise legitimate users of cold medication.

Try walking a mile in their shoes, dealing with the scum of the earth they deal with every minute of everyday before you sit in judgement of them. Don't knock the police you may need their help one day.