A school teacher does what Andrew Little failed to do, some research on ‘Three Strikes’

Andrew Little has claimed that ‘three strikes’ doesn’t work, yet has produced no evidence to suggest this is true.

A school teacher does what Andrew Little failed to do, some research on ‘Three Strikes’. He writes in his email which was sent to many politicians across the political spectrum and also to many news outlets, none of which has produced the sort of analysis that he has provided. Quote:

Good Evening NZ Media, Prime Minister, Politicians, Invested People etc.

Firstly my name is Mark Ross, I’m a 35 year old Social Science & PE teacher in South Canterbury.? You may use my name if you so choose.

Last year I asked The Ministry of Justice (Department of Corrections and New Zealand Police) for various information related to the 3?Strikes?Legislation in an Official Information Request after reading a story featuring Justice Minister Andrew Little where he stated “It’s been eight years since this got onto the statute books and it’s not making a blind bit of difference“.

In my brain I thought to myself,?that sounds like complete “bollocks”.

Basically, after the OIA request results came in from some pretty basic questions (attached),?I don’t think in the history of this country has a policy worked better than this one.

Quick Points to note from the attached information /data . (All Attached below in full)

1st time warnings for qualifying offenses has remained the same for 5 years pre and post 3?strikes?legislation

2nd time offenders decreased by 34%?compared to when 3?strikes?didn’t exist.

Between 1 June 2010 and 31 May 2017 there were;

  • 1st?strike?offenders: 8,050
  • 2nd?strike?offenders:?113
  • 3rd?strike?offenders:?2

Percentage of offenders with one warning getting a second (re-offending):?1.4%

Re-offending rate?before 3?Strikes?policy?for?same type offenses😕 (40%?average? re-offending rate, re-imprisoned at average of around 23%)

Percentage chance of 1st?strike?offenders receiving a 3rd?strike?:??0.0248%

I’d say nothing in history has worked better in reducing repeat violent and sexual offenders than this policy, in reducing the number of victims.

Mr Little?stated that?””I think there is an acceptance now that it just doesn’t work“.

I suggest he looks at the statistics, it shows that the message is sinking in that this warning (Particularly 2 and 3) work to reduce re-offending.

He could also track down the victim of some disgusting human being from our country that would of had 4 warnings if this policy was in place the 5 years prior what they think, to see if his attitude of it not working would remain the same.

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts and the statistics/ evidence that I actually have sort out to back up those thoughts, unlike the Minister of Justice that appears to be going on gut feelings, no statistics and terrible advice from somewhere; maybe Facebook.


Kind Regards.


Mark Ross
South Canterbury. End quote.

As you can see from Mark Ross’ letter and from the OIA responses, it appears that ‘Three Strikes’ works and works well, if only the soft judges would let it.

It also shows that Andrew Little doesn’t understand a single thing about the legislation and is intent on Labour becoming the preferred party of the criminal classes.

Given the intent of the government to have 1800 more police on the streets, and they have a ‘catch and release’ criminal justice policy, one wonders just what precisely these new police are actually going to be doing?

NZ First has a real dilemma on their hands because they’ve supported a ‘three strikes’ policy in the past and have a tough on crime reputation. Winston Peters could shore up support for his party by rejecting Andrew Little’s law changes. Other wise he may well watch his core voters disappear in a cloud of outrage.


OIA responses regarding ‘Three Strikes’ legislation by Cam Slater on Scribd