When Burton is sentenced tomorrow New Zealand justice should be ashamed. In Britain and New South Wales the judges could say “you will remain in prison until you die”.

In New Zealand no judge can say that. They could have and did, here, until the loopy “justice as therapy for the criminal” theorists took control.

Preventive detention gives the discretion back into the same effete hands that let Burton out to commit his second unprovoked murder.

 Lawyers who value liberty should be  uneasy about preventive detention. It removes the safeguard of court  neutrality in applying the law and gives the sentencing discretion to state officials. The unique boast of our legal system was that no  individual’s  liberty  was  at the whim of  politicians (or officials  who must follow their orders). They could be acting for many reasons other than justice.

Worse, it is a consolation prize  –  intended to distract the dumb punters so despised by the justice establishment. Instead of getting justice as the result of the trial,  we are told,  “leave it to us”, “trust us, we will see that he is adequately punished “, and “we will keep you safe“.  Yeah right. 

In reality the anointed want to head off any risk that the courts will give a sentence that the crime deserves. They want to have the discretion to let these beasts out earlier than anyone would accept at the end of the trial, while the hurt and loss of the crime is fresh.

For practical purposes, the preventive detention law passed (over my objections in 2002) falls short of  delivering justice because:

• Burton should know, his victims’ families should know, every criminal minded to admire his “staunch” behaviour, and everyone else should know, that for certain that he will die in prison. NSW and British judges can once again deliver that message.
•  There are some crimes and people so evil that justice requires that unequivocal message –  a sentence that the murderer will never be released. Our judges could, once, and should be able to again.
• a preventive detention sentence delivers the power back to the same people who have just applied their loopy theories and failed. They will try to let him out again because they do not believe in punishment – they believe in “therapeutic justice” – that is, the purpose of the system is to cure a sickness in the criminal.
• that multiplies the victims’ suffering many times over the years. 10 or 15 years down the track the victims will have to decide whether to try to prevent his release. The law means that they can only do so by arguing to the Parole Board that it is a public safety issue. Victims should be able to say, quite simply, that it is a justice issue. Why should he be  en joying freedom, no doubt with the state’s bountiful support, while Karl can never en joy anything again. 
• Worse, a change in the Bill before the government right now will allow the Parole Board to decide not to hear from them if they think it is not related to safety.  Sensible Sentencing has been with many victims at these hearings. The existing limits on what the Board can listen to are disgraceful. The current changes will make it worse. The Parole Board should have the power to deny release simply because it would offend justice. 
• If the victims decide to try to leave the whole affair behind them by not protesting at a looming parole, they will feel disloyal to Karl. Meanwhile Burton will be being carefully cosseted, readied for release, to renew his life, while they can never again spend time with their son, partner, father etc.
• All cultures and peoples have a tradition of punishment to redress the balance, to ensure that offenders can not count on being left better off by and after their crime than the people they have wronged, but the “therapeutic” theory has ruled in NZ for 30 years. The establishment know better. They hate the idea of punishment as denunciation and levelling the scales. They persist in seeing it as “treatment for the benefit of the offender”.
• It is outrageous that tomorrow none of Burton‘s latest victims, or his earlier victims have any right to tell the court what should happen to him. Instead their victim impact statements are strictly confined to reinforcing their position as “losers”. They are entitled only to whine about what has happened to them.  
• Burton‘s lawyer and family can come and tell the court what they think should happen but not his victims. Victims  should have exactly the same right to tell the court what they think should happen as the criminal and his lawyers and whanau.

There is no reason to apologise for wanting punishment that ensures a price for crime equal to harm of the crime.