Radio New Zealand is reporting a Canadian judge’s decision to refer to a native "sentencing circle" the sentence for a drunk father took his two daughters into a blizzard where they froze to death. The judge will determine the sentence but may have regard to the "circle’s" recommendation.

I’ve long thought that it would be more logical to involve our juries in sentencing than in determining guilt and innocence.

Judges should use the jury as a community representative group to test their sentencing inclinations. In appropriate cases (where the convict clearly identifies with a particular sub-group of society, such as an iwi) judges could ask kaumatua or other representatives for guidance.

Judges should of course ask the victims for their views, and step around the odious refinements of the law governing victim impact statements. There have already been high profile cases (e.g. sentencing for the Lois Dear murder) where they judge has judiciously condoned a victim challenge to the existing law, as victims ‘abuse’ the opportunity to read their statements, by making speeches to the court.

Our new Attorney General, Chris Finlayson could rationalise this. He could free judges from the stupidity of the "tariff". It is time to end the waste of legal aid money on footling appeal adjustments to sentences.