Chief Victims Advisor Ruth Money says scrapping the "good character" assessment would help survivors of sexual violence.
National's justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith said yesterday that if elected, National will scrap character references for sexual offenders, saying the current system prioritises the interests of the offender over victims of sexual violence.
At the moment judges must consider testimonies from people willing to speak to an offender's character which can include former coaches, employers and family members, during sentencing.
National justice spokesperson Paul Goldsmith said yesterday that if elected, National will scrap character references for sexual offenders, saying the current system prioritises the interests of the offender over victims of sexual violence. (Source: Breakfast)
Speaking to Breakfast this morning, Money said the process is flawed as offenders don't have to provide full details when asking for a reference - "It's absolutely nonsensical".
She said there have been cases in New Zealand where people who have written references have come out to say they didn't know the full circumstances of the person they were providing it for.
Money believed by scrapping the "good character" assessment "we would be helping so many victims and survivors".
"To sit in the courtroom and hear what a "lovely" chap (who) sexually violated you, your daughter, your mother, is the most offensive process."
After National made the announcement yesterday Money said the general consensus was "overwhelmed joy from victim survivors".
Defence Lawyers' Association co-founder Elizabeth Hall, however, told RNZ she didn't see the benefit of the proposed change.
She said judges consider a wide range of factors when determining the type and length of sentence, not just "good character" assessments.
"Judges must take them into account, but that does not mean that a judge must afford a discount."
She went on to say, "particularly in sexual offending cases, judges often don't apply a good character discount".
Hall believed the ability for judges to consider "good character" was important for people who had lived "blameless lives" but made a mistake.
Money agreed, but not for all offences.
"You don't make a mistake when you rape a six-year-old"
Money said had been advocating to get rid of the assessment for over a decade, and her advice to the government was clear.
"Good character is integrity, how do you have integrity when you're sexually violating children and adults, it doesn't make sense."
SHARE ME