Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Conflicting views on sentencing

We were listening to Newstalk ZB around lunchtime. Danny Watson was outrgaed at the community-based sentence handed down to Frances Stubbs in Blenheim yesterday, and most of his callers were of the lock-her-up-and-throw-away-the-key variety.

By contrast, Stuff is running a story on the sentencing. Under the headline Victim's family satisfied with sentence, it begins:

The eldest son and the partner of the Blenheim woman killed by a drunk-driver who sped away from a police alcohol check-point have backed the judge's decision not to jail the young driver.

Penelope Phillips, 51, died in March when 20-year-old Frances Stubbs collided with her vehicle at the roundabout at the intersection of Nelson and Hutcheson streets moments after Stubbs fled the check-point.

Mrs Phillips' son, Brad Phillips, described the sentence as "all right".

"It could've been worse. She could've been sent to jail," he said.

"I didn't want her to go to jail. She's too young; it would've done more harm to her."

The sentence meant Stubbs would have to face up to her crime before the community, Mr Phillips said.

"She's got to deal with it and see everybody."

He had met Stubbs at an informal restorative justice meeting and did not think she was a bad person.

"She doesn't seem like the kind of person to go out and deliberately ruin someone's time."

The meeting had answered questions but he was not sure it made him feel better.

Asked how the family was coping, he said they would take a long time to recover. Three of Mrs Phillips' other children were also in Blenheim District Court to watch Stubbs being sentenced yesterday, but did not want to comment.

Mrs Phillips' partner, Neil Jorgensen, said the sentence was reasonable.

"I think the judge made a wise summing up and there's some potential for her [Stubbs] to get back on track.

"There's more value in her being in the community, rather than in jail where she can learn ... criminal activities."

Nothing would bring Mrs Phillips back, so the focus had to be on the living, Mr Jorgensen said. That included Stubbs.

"She needs to get on with her life and recover from it ... it's a shame this tragedy had to step into our lives."


We don't know if Danny Watson or any of his callers have read this story, but it certainly gave us cause to stop and think. It's dead easy to criticise the judiciary in sentencing, but on this occasion, it looks as though the sentencing judge has taken the victim family's views into account in passing sentence. We also commend Mrs Phillips' family for their apparent lack of desire for vengeance; it's somewhat refreshing.

There's no doubt that two families have been profoundly affected by what Stubbs' father described as a "brain explosion" by his daughter. On balance, we reckon that justice was served in the Blenheim District Court yesterday.

4 comments:

James Stephenson said...

After all the hoo-hah about another (likely) non-jail sentencing yesterday, can I just point out that this shows you don't have to be a male member of the "establishment" to avoid jail - but it does help to be a first-offender, to admit your guilt and be genuinely remorseful.

Community sentencing probably does carry more weight in a small town like Blenheim too...

robertguyton said...

Invent
I have very close knowledge of this 'case' and admire the position you have taken.

Inventory2 said...

Appreciate that Robert; there are times when justice must be tempered with mercy, and this seems to be one of them.

scrubone said...

The problem is that jail is "the" punishment for serious offending in our society. Unfortunately, jails are an incredibly bad idea.

Too often we have the ideas mixed up and call for jail when what we really mean is serious punishment.

Jail is better for recidivist criminals. In the case of an offender like this one, trying another alternative is a much better idea.