Prison Numbers continue to rise

According to this morning's Dom Post, the number of people in prison continues to skyrocket, and will hit 10,500 under current policies by 2010.

Talk about a massive failure of imagination on the part of both Labour and National.

Why we lock up people who perpetrate victimless crimes - especially drug stuff - is entirely beyond me.

Why we have a justice system that fails to rehabilitate people is beyond me.

Why we have a public pissing contest between the major parties about who can be tougher on crime is beyond me.

Why, in the best economic times we have had for decades and the lowest crime rate for decades, the prison population is at record levels, is beyond me.

It's a failure which comes from a bidding war for middle and working class voters, who constantly get told that tougher sentencing will solve crime when it will not. Like it or not, that seems to be where politics is at. My party is responsible for taking part in the bidding war, but we have never led it - and the vile Tony Ryall has a lot to answer for on this front.

How can we generate a more rational debate on criminal justice policy that actually deals with the problems, and does not lead to the second-highest imprisonment rates in the Western world? The status quo is simply not good enough.

Comments

[Sock Thief]

I think it’s necessary to accept that there will always be an element of vengeance to justice. Unpleasant though it is, most people when they have been wronged want the perpetrator to suffer. Ignore that aspect of our nature and you just wind up with the sensible sentencing brigade.

But I suppose emplacing the use of prison for violent crime and for the worst of white collar crime and looking at other forms of punishment for other forms of crime is a start. Community service has always appealed but the problem with that is that it can undermine the employment conditions of those already doing such work.

The drug laws should be changed but it looks a long way off before general attitudes towards drugs shifts to treat them like alcohol.

But a major aspect is the high rate of Maori imprisonment.

[Chris]

Jordan, hear hear. We can agree on this at least.

[dim]

I'd like to see a serious movement to legalise cannibis lead by a politician that ISN'T NANDOR TANCZOS or a similar fringe greenie.

I've got nothing against Nandor, but it's to damn easy to dismis his argument for legalisation is merely the self-interest of a devoted pot-smoker. This issue needs a respected articulate politician to sponser a legalisation bill - not because they personally want to get high, but because the current law doesn't make any damn sense, esp now that speed and ecstasy homologues are now sold in the local supermarkets.

[Sock Thief]

I'm saddened to see Nandor demoted. Maybe he wants out of politics. Its one of the few issues I agree with the Greens on - getting some sanity into the drug laws.

[Milou]

It's good to see an area where partisan differences are (momentarily) put aside for the benefit of, well, sensible pragmatic policy. It's just a shame that this debate will inevitably be politised into a 'tough on crime' pissing contest in the media that has less to do with how to actually reduce crime. Drug policy is a major factor in crime - compare the policies and effects of various European countries with the US for a start. Then, start to put into place policies that reduce harm and remove the criminal element from personal use.

The drug policies of this government confuses me - a knee-jerk hysterical reaction to nitrous oxide, yet a more sensible one towards piperazine (BZP/TFMPP) based party pills. And still nothing on cannabis...

[Gooner]

Why has this transposed into a debate about decriminalisation? Jordan's post was good. I agree with him on the points raised, but there werre more issues in it than just dope.

Jordan asked how there can be a debate on the problems. That's difficult when the problems are not agreed on. I actually think we don't need any more research into causes of crime, rather we need serious research on why people DO NOT commit crime. If we can establish common reasons why they don't then we just have to focus our energies on these issues rather than get sidetracked. I've always thought that would be a good PhD topic.

[Gooner]

I want to also repeat what I have said here before, that imprisonment cannot work as a deterrent. If it did, the prison population would be decreasing as people realise they don't want to go there, and hence would not commit crime. All it does, at a micro level, is stop Offender A committing more crime whilst he/she is locked up. And even though people like Arthur Taylor find ways to commit crime whilst incarcerated.

[resistantsoy]

To diverge on the drug laws again; the difference between the treatment of nitrous oxide and "herbal highs" reflects the fact that the industry and the Greens through careful manouvering were able to pre-empt prohibition coming from Jim Anderton, whereas he was able to make the first move on nitrous and create policy by default.

[resistantsoy]

(meant to be part of the last comment)
Which is of course what happens when politicians are able to railroad policy through without reasoned debate and actual evidence of efficacy.

It would be nice to see the Government front foot evidence based policies in the law and order debate, and given the current public impression of the police now might actually be a good time to start.

Of course, it would be just as nice to see JA removed from cabinet...

[geniusNZ]

Some poeple are fundimentally more likely ot commit crimes than others, thus prison can be a deterant and still most probably have a revolving door.
One aditional explination is that prison is better than it sounds (it sounds pretty bad) and that most of the people who would be deterred by prison are already detered before they go in for a first time.

So you have a solution available by making prisons more brutal (note low crime rates in many muslim countries with very archaic punishments) or you could use fines and so forth (non prison punishments) for calculated crimes - I like this because you both save and make money at the same time.

What would also help is more police and less paperwork for them so it was more credible that the police would catch you for crimes (therefore a lower deterant would be needed when you were caught and it might be less likely that deterant would be a custodial sentance).
If we are talking about labour I suggest option 1 (and possibly 3) wouldnt go down well.

resistant soy,
I think you need to get used to it. I predict this country will go towards JA's politics not nandor's.
Cigarettes are the test case.

[Graham watson]

Good to see a liberal view being expressed on this blog re victimless crimes.

However for violent crimes I have no problem with these criminals languishing behind bars. They should be serving whatever the judge is determining they should serve, not being let out after one third (except in a few cases) under the policy introduced by this government.

If this means more investment in prisons , so what. Spend the money. Or maybe if less victimless criminals were imprisoned more capacity would be freed.

With these violent criminals safely behind bars for their full sentence they won't be out committing crimes, it doesn't make liars of judges and the desire by the community for punitive action is satisfied.

This does not mean to say rehab programmes can't be conducted in conjunction.

[stephen]

"low crime rates in many muslim countries with very archaic punishments."

Ho ho ho.

Corrupt justice systems run by corrupt regimes in nepotistic(?) societies are not likely to produce accurate statistics. Not to mention that many things we recognise as crimes, notably domestic violence, wouldn't even be recorded.

When theft was a capital offence in England, and there were public executions, there were pickpockets in the crowds at the hanging. (I wish I knew who first said that...)

Returning the deterrent power of jail: I've just finished Celia Lashlie's book, where she makes the distressing point that jail can often be preferrable to life on the outside, not because it offers better amenities, but because it offers refuge from the violence and unpredictability of crummy lives of the criminal element. And her take on what prevents crime? Parenting. O the surprise.

I do think that belief you will be caught is an important deterrent - so visible policing and an alert citizenry would be my first port of call. I'd rather the police had fewer powers of search and surveillance but more of them wandering about.

[GeniusNZ]

> Corrupt justice systems run by corrupt regimes in nepotistic(?) societies are not likely to produce accurate statistics.

Indeed - but when you can park your car with the keys inside by the side of the road you are obviously in a safer place than washington DC where you might well loose your car while stopped at a traffic light.

> Not to mention that many things we recognise as crimes, notably domestic violence, wouldn't even be recorded.

Well they to large extent aren't punished either and thus I expect they do indeed have a high rate of such crimes - but htat jsut proves the point.

> When theft was a capital offence in England, and there were public executions, there were pickpockets in the crowds at the hanging.

If you arent going to properly enforce a law then people will break it all the time. Obviously they were only punishing a tiny fraction of the offenders. Anyway methods that leave the person alive work better than death because the "reformed" people are walking advertisments for the punishment.

> And her take on what prevents crime? Parenting. O the surprise.

Er yeah, we are doing parenting. genetic engineering would also prevent crime - but what are you going to do about the adults? parent them?

> I'd rather the police had fewer powers of search and surveillance but more of them wandering about.

the less power you give the police the more of them you need. At some point you give the police so little power that to solve certain problems you need an infinitly large police force.

I think you need to be able to trust your own government. Fix it so that you can trust it - and then give it the power to do the things that it needs to do. If you are setting it up to fail - why have a government at all?

One way for example would be to give police many extra powers as long as they video taped themselves doing it.
Forget about all the paper work and just archive all the raw data in case it is needed - you can have an independant department to investigate credible complaints and random cases - and have some pretty harsh punishments for breaches of the trust placed in them.

[t selwyn]

Genius: Do you realise your spelling improves when you're making good points?

I still reckon, if you budget for higher numbers - you get higher numbers.

There are certain institutional expectations that occur when you increase capacity. Example: would a judge sentence someone to prison for a non-violent offence when the prison is over-flowing? Now, what if they knew there was plenty of room (and an expectation that it should therefore be used)? If a new police officer starts working at a one-man station, would the hierarchy expect to double their prosecution rate and number? If it only went up by 20% then they may conclude that they were not being productive enough. It's priorites.

Anyway, releasing everyone who is inside on purely drugs offences could release about 5% of the prisoners automatically. JA would have a stroke!

[GeniusNZ]

haha maybe it depends on the audience I am aiming for

[Peter Cresswell (Not PC)]

I'm in complete agreement with you Jordan that locking people up who perpetrate victimless 'crimes' is a hideous disgrace.

Stopping doing so would not just remove the disgrace, but would free up the police to deal with real crime, and free up prison occupation by about thirty to forty percent.

Vile Ryall certainly does have a lot to answer for on this, as does Phil Goff, both of whom have sought to to remove the presumption of innocence from NZ law, particularly as it applies to confiscation of so-called drug profits.

So on this we agree, and as Graham says it's good to hear these views from you. But where you and I part company is that I don't view justice as being primarily rehabilitative - its primary job is one of protection.

Prison is, first and foremost, intended to protect innocent people from thugs - the first job of government really. When thugs are repeatedly freed to mug and murder again, then we're entitled to point out we aren't being protected properly.

The second aim in sentencing must surely be to attempt some kind of restitution for the victims of crime. Crime isn't crime against society; it is crime against a particualr victim, and that victim should not be left worse off because of the crime, nor the offender better off because of it.

So if those two aims can be met, then by all means rehabilitate all you like. But it's not the primary aim of a prison system in my view.

[Gooner]

Peter said "Crime isn't crime against society; it is crime against a particualr victim...".

Sorry Peter, it is against society, that is why the State prosecutes and doesn't leave it up to the individual. You are right in that the first role of government is to protect us form thugs, and they do that by prosecuting them for their crimes against society, us.

[Peter Cresswell (Not PC)]

Gooner, you said: "Sorry Peter, it is against society, that is why the State prosecutes and doesn't leave it up to the individual."

Any crime is one against a victim, and it is important to remember that. A 'victimless crime' is a meaningless nonsense, as is a 'crime against society.' Who exactly in society was the crime against?

The reason the state prosecutes rather than a lynch mob is that in a civilised society the right of retaliatory force is is the job of government - the role of government is to
bring this right under objective control, ie., objectively defined laws.

[stephen]

Maybe the answer is completely different:

"Bernard Gesch gave a course of supplements containing essential fatty acids and key vitamins and minerals to prisoners in one of Britain's maximum security prisons. The inmates were responsible for some of the highest levels of prison violence in the UK. The number of serious offences, including violence, by the prisoners, fell by nearly 40% in those taking the supplements but not at all in those not taking them."

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,5500,1476458,00.html