¾ÅÒ»ÐÇ¿ÕÎÞÏÞ

On the Government considering minimum sentences, I would have no problem with this.

I realise the judiciary aren't going to love it because it's tying their hands.

But frankly, that is the point.

Because some of the sentencing discounts that have been handed down by judges are frankly outrageous.

The worst case that I've come across is the case of a rapist who attacked a woman in Albert Park in Auckland three years ago.

He was given a discount of 77% by the judge for being young, for pleading guilty, for being good before that and for trying to be better after that.

The defence lawyer had sought discounts totalling 110%.

Discounting to that point feels like nothing more than trying to get as light of a sentence as possible.

Now, I know the Government has already amended the law so judges are limited to handing down discounts of no more than 40%.

But that doesn't fix the problem entirely because there are still ways to game that, for example by simply beginning with a low starting point, so that by the time you've discounted to the max of 40% you end up at the low point you want.

We seem to think if you're in jail for murder that's a bit much and I don't think it is.

A minimum sentence sets a bar below which even the craftiest judge can't fall.

The problem with it is obviously the risk that it becomes the default sentence but if that starts happening then that can be dealt with.

Also, this is not a novel idea.

They do this in the U.S, in the UK, in Australia, in Singapore etc. And I see a case for us doing it too.

If you're discounting three quarters of a sentence, you've got a problem.

LISTEN ABOVE