Our  report,  Sentencing  Guidelines  and  Parole  Reform,  is  being  released  today.   The reforms it recommends, that the Prime Minister has already summarised, are much needed for several reasons. The  first  reason  is  that  different  courts  –  and  even  different  judges  –  are sentencing  inconsistently,  particularly  for  offences  of  lesser  seriousness  being dealt with in the District Court.  We received a lot of anecdotal feedback about inconsistent practices, which was confirmed by empirical research.  Anyone who is interested can find that research on our website.    The  second  reason  is  that  the  policy  as  to  the  type  and  length  of  sentence  for different  offences  is  not  informed  by  the  range  of  perspective,  experience  and values that is required in this area.  Judges are largely left to determine that policy themselves.  It is no criticism of the judiciary to say that, while they should be free to impose the appropriate sentence in the individual case, they are not equipped to bring to bear the range of factors that need to be considered in determining the policy on which those sentences are based.  The public  needs to have a greater voice in sentencing policy, and so does Parliament. Thirdly,   punishment   levels   are   not   transparent.      There   is   a   great   deal   of misunderstanding about them and there is no process for debating them.   Fourthly, the lack of a transparent policy makes the system unpredictable.  That means  that  the  resources  required  for  the  prison  system  cannot  be  effectively planned  for  and  managed.    The  fact  is  that,  when  the  Government  passes sentencing legislation, it must try to forecast the prison population and assess the likely impact on other aspects of the Corrections system.  However, it does this largely  in  the  dark.    This  is  because  it  cannot  predict  how  judicial  sentencing practice   will   change   in   response   to   the   legislation.      Judicial   discretion   is important, but at present there is simply too little overall guidance as to the way in which it is to be exercised.    Finally,  there  is  a  need  for  more  “truth  in  sentencing”  in  New  Zealand.    The present parole structure allows most prisoners to be considered for release after C:\Documents and Settings\TMcGlennon\Desktop\SG&PR\EI Launch GP Speech.doc