Cowboy justice
National’s law and order announcements are about as Wild West as they come. As Colin Espiner says:
National has this morning bowed to those beating the law and order drum, releasing a parole policy so punitive it makes the United States look like a bastion of liberalism by comparison…
The implications of National’s new policy are considerable. At a stroke, National is essentially disestablishing nearly a hundred years of restorative justice and rehabilitation programmes that are now accepted as the norm in the corrections system.
But, as Espiner notes, the blame for this sort of play to the base vicious streak in each of us lays partly with Labour:
National and Labour have been vying to outdo each other on law and order for some time. Labour’s Phil Goff is arguably to the Right of Simon Power, and under his watch Labour has significantly increased sentences and jail time. It’s had to build three new prisons in its time in office.
Labour has gone against all research and evidence about what works in sentencing, instead repeatedly trying to steal National and NZ First’s ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric by unleashing longer sentences, more punitive measures and less protections for people in our judicial system. Its brinksmanship has pushed National to take the brutal stance it has.
It’s easy to see why. Anyone who has been the victim of crime has felt that burning need for retribution. But sadly we know it doesn’t work like that. Tapu Misa noted last week:
A 2003 survey of New Zealanders’ attitudes to crime and punishment showed that we tended to overestimate crime statistics and underestimate the lengths of prison sentences. Even as sentences have lengthened and our prison population has exploded (up around 70 per cent under Labour) and recorded crime has fallen (with the exception of violent crime), we have been convinced of the opposite.
If we are looking around to solutions to violent crime I would have thought the United States ‘three strikes‘ rule was not the most obvious place to begin?
October 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
So what does work…Group hugs?
Get real, there are some people that you will never rehabilitate and some people who the state should lock away forever.
I want prison to be about retribution, I want prison to be punitive and I want prisoners to suffer.
October 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
What bubble are the greens in?
Arrgghh …….. getting stabed….. must reach past defensive weapon….for…the phone…..must dial 111……must not stop agressor expressing himself…….must understand….. restorative justice…is the answer……my blood…is necessary….for better life for all………
October 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
We could adopt the Asian model (as in Japan)
http://www.documen.tv/asset/Japan_form_inside_film.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_system_of_Japan
October 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
This might help
See the doco at the end:
http://tinyurl.com/4hjvzx
http://tinyurl.com/4hjvzx
October 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Sheesh. So much for the Enlightenment. Talk about who would take us back to the stone ages…
October 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The Ministry of Justice did a report (through ‘regression analysis’) in 1997 which produced the following:
1962 - 1995 I think it was.
October 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Er and that was taken from NRT, so not the Ministry’s language.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
This makes me think of the stabbed dairy operator Varinder Singh who now has the very real probability of becoming a criminal, and the only thing between him and a conviction is a jury, who will probably be convinced by the Crown’s case.
The real problem is that politicians cannot think beyond a term in government. The only way to reduce crime is to stop people getting into crime in the first place, and nothing that any party or pressure group is suggesting today will address that issue directly. It is a problem whose solutions are measured in generational time.
So we’ll waste more taxpayer money on known poor solutions.
Madness.
I take the view that any organisation who thinks the solutions to crime lie in adjusting the size of the bolt on the open stable door are actually pro-crime organisations. The horse is already down the road, its too late…
October 6th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
And forgot to mention - the three strike rule is not inherently a bad idea, it is just badly implimented.
The “three strike” rule effectively means removing someone from society on a permanent basis, and a decision like that is not one that should be entrusted to the courts. It should be an administrative decision made by faceless mandarins, which can take place any time after the third qualifying sentence is handed down by the courts.
These mandarins have the job of ensuring that the person about to be excluded is truly deserving, and there is no possibility that there is an error (ie the three sets of prosecutions involved largely seperate police personal, to eliminate the possibility of a grudge etc), as the decision to exclude should be irrevocable and not subject to appeal.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
As I understand it the National party policy only applies to repeat offenders not those with some chance of rehabilitation. Unlike BB I do not think prisoners have to suffer; vindictiveness is not a particularly useful attribute to encourage. However I think it is important to protect society from repeated violent offenders. If a violent offender is insane, they are not locked away for punishment, but they are locked away to protect society. We should seriously look at doing the same for all repeat violent offenders.
Having said that I don’t think longer sentences work as a deterrent. I have never wanted to kill anyone myself, but I think if I was ever angry enough, desperate enough, greedy enough, arrogant enough or mad enough to want to do so, the death penalty or life in prison is not going to stop me (though it would certainly stop me doing it a second time).
October 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Yeah, just like banning smacking won’t stop someone who really wants to beat their kid.
October 6th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Yes Shunda - just like the spectre of the death penalty in your favoured land, the good ‘ol … doesn’t stop someone who really wants to murder. Life sentence is going to reduce crime in NZ? Yeah..
October 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Did somebody say death penalty?
They will get my vote!
October 6th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
No greenfly I have a fool proof system of how to “reform” violent criminals.
it involves electric shock “thearapy”
You give em a dose of 100 00 volts and if they survive it means they can be “reformed”
If they don’t it means they were a witch and justice is served!!!
October 6th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
“Yeah, just like banning smacking won’t stop someone who really wants to beat their kid.”
Come on Shunda, we’ve been through this all before. I pointed out that the law change was to remove a defense of “reasonable force” for people already arrested and on trial for beating kids with pieces of wood or hose pipes. Before the law change people had indeed got off after doing this. You said at the time that you would never defend such action.
So what can we say now that you ignore this, which you now know even if you were duped by the media propaganda previously, and yet decide to toss the same old lie back as us. Just playing some sort of perverse politics, or would you have us believe I’m getting nit picky with my words again?
October 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“If they don’t it means they were a witch and justice is served!!!”
Nice of you and big bro to give us such insight into you disturbed psychologies.
October 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Valis
Nice of you to let us know you favour letting child rapists and murders back out on to the street.
Can I assume you would be happy to have these people living next door to you?
October 6th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Valis come on, lighten up a bit, you do realise I was joking?
every one knows a real witch would survive electric shock therapy, we would likely need a new version of the dunking chair!
October 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
big bro, I’ve never said any such thing, nor would Green policy lead to such. You’re just making it up as you go.
Shunda, I hope you are joking. If so, I apologise for associating you with big bro.
October 7th, 2008 at 6:17 am
# Valis Says:
October 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Sheesh. So much for the Enlightenment. Talk about who would take us back to the stone ages…
………………………
Yet your keen on tino rangitiratanga ETC
October 7th, 2008 at 7:07 am
StephenR Says:
October 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“The Ministry of Justice did a report (through ‘regression analysis’) in 1997 which produced the following:
………………..
This research does not presume to look for root causes of crime. The interactions between the many social, cultural, economic, situational, criminal justice and other factors that influence both offending and the public and official responses to offending are universally recognised as being extremely complex.
However, major changes in the structure or attitudes of society, in economic conditions, in the composition of New Zealand’s population, or in the way offending is dealt with, may have a sufficiently strong overall impact to influence aggregate levels of recorded crime. Such changes can influence both the long-term trends and the short-term fluctuations in recorded crime rates.
////
New Zealand was a very different society in the early 1960s from what it is in the 1990s. Urbanisation, changing patterns of family and workforce composition, increasing exposure to drugs, globalisation, increasing cultural diversity and innumerable other social changes have contributed to this evolution. Although each of these factors has had positive effects on society, each has also been implicated as a contributor to increasing crime (reviewed by Hackler 1994).
Cohort studies consistently find that the development of criminal behaviour is strongly associated with the family background of the individual (Kolvin et al. 1988, White et al. 1990, Tarling 1993, Fergusson et al. 1994, Graham and Bowling 1995). For example, family background factors in the early years of a child’s development (such as low parental education, youth of parents, single parenthood, low socio-economic status, health and housing problems, family disruption, abuse and many others) all contribute to an increased risk of delinquency in subsequent years.
////
Overseas studies indicate that the probability (and promptness) of punishment is a more effective deterrent than the severity of punishment (reviewed by Paternoster 1987, Ellis and Ellis 1989, Pyle 1993). Some studies suggest that deterrent effects are significant mainly for property crimes, others suggest deterrence is only likely when the arrest rate is high, while yet other studies find no deterrent effect at all.
Probability and severity of punishment
Only three offence types (theft, vehicle conversion and fraud), all of which are dishonesty offences, showed any sign of a deterrent effect. In each case the probability of punishment (clearance or conviction rate) was important. No deterrent effect for either the clearance rate or the conviction rate was found for violent offences, property damage, burglary or drug offences. The severity of punishment was not significant for any offence type for the available 1979-95 period.”
Given the levels to which “human rights” have progressed : the news crew, video cam, lawyer with flash haircut, and assorted bleeding hearts, law breakers know the system must use kid gloves, so severity of punishment is a limited concept “prison shouldn’t be for punishment”…. Geoffrey Palmer.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:59 am
“Sheesh. So much for the Enlightenment. Talk about who would take us back to the stone ages…
………………………
Yet your keen on tino rangitiratanga ETC”
Yes, a contract signed not nearly as long ago, which can be meaningfully honoured without having to take the country literally back to 1840. Must we go through this again?
October 7th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Choking back the laughter…
So the Greens don’t really have a drug policy position at all.
They waddle along.. ’silently’ perpetuating the myths, hoping like hell no one will notice the disconnect.
“A cross the many policy responses to drugs in society, the war on drugs ethos, its legislative instruments, and their enforcement has become a significant driver of drug harms. Through its mass criminalisation of users, its abdication of market control to unregulated criminal profiteers, and creation of a vast anarchic and violent criminal economy, prohibition, whatever its original intentions, has become a policy of harm maximisation, in both public health and criminal justice spheres.” /Danny Kushlick / Transform.
Nothing undermines the GREEN Party vote and social integrity more than the pandering to fears where there should be none. It is the UN-sustainable policy.
Question? Which Party in NZ’s political history first and consistently argued for a sustainable ‘all drug’ health and justice policy? Clue: The GreenParty once worked alongside its leader, and a lecture in his honour was held last night, 6th Oct. at the Maidment (UoA).
No party can be serious about crime and punishment by ommitting drug policy. End of story. Everything else will just confuse you.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Yes
October 7th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Valis said
>
>>Sheesh. So much for the Enlightenment. Talk about who would take us back to the stone ages…
>
Why is it that whenever someone suggests that an approach from the past might be used again, you raise the “Stone Age” line?
Some things in the past were good things. Respect for your elders and other peoples’ property. Learning standards that students strived to achieve so they could attend higher education for free. Communities that knew and cared for each other. Families driven to achieve happiness and well-being rather than possessions and external entertainment. Food that was made by Mum from scratch, using products purchased from local producers through local shops. I could fill the data allowance of this blog with things from the past that were good.
One in particular good thing from the past was the nature of our prisons. They were places of punishment. Prisoners were required to work for eight hours a day, given the opportunity to mix with each other for two hours a day (1.5 in the evening, 0.5 at ‘lunch’ time,) and were incarcerated in their cells with a jerry-can for the other 14 hours. Every two days you kept you nose clean and didn’t cause a fuss earned you one day off your ‘banged up” time. Every day you were a pain in the arse added 10 days to it. (I was a prison visitor in the 70s and listened to many a lag tell me about their porridge). Recidivism was certainly much lower than it is today because ‘that place’ was to be avoided at all costs.)
Maybe you regard those days and ways a “stone age”, but I regard them as times when being sent to prison was a punishment, not an occupational hazard! I, and many like me, want people who break the laws against mischief regarding other peoples property and physical harm (of any kind) to another person, to be punished in a way that makes them not want that punishment again. This is, to me, the best approach to rehabilitation there can be.
October 7th, 2008 at 11:41 am
ANOTHER
>
>>Come on Shunda, we’ve been through this all before. I pointed out that the law change was to remove a defense of “reasonable force” for people already arrested and on trial for beating kids with pieces of wood or hose pipes.
>
So how come a father who ‘flicked’ the ear of his son as a lesson not to ride his bike dangerously on the foot-path has been charged under the Act?
October 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Because the reporting of the incident was wrong and something more serious occurred. Of course, while the false “flick” was reported sensationally on the front page, the follow up story correcting it was buried in the paper.
The police have the right to use their judgment in these cases, as has always been the case. That John Key had such a right inserted in the repeal legislation didn’t change anything, which everyone in parliament knew. Key just wanted to support this sensible change and knew that the media’s portrayal of the issue was so bad that he would look like a statesman.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“Yes”
Well not with me, jh. I said I’d had enough a few weeks ago and recommended you read one of the many good books on the subject to educate yourself. Good luck with that.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Valis,
“The police have the right to use their judgment in these cases,”
who teaches the police about “judgment”?
So it all comes down to an individual officers personal opinion on dicipline?
Are the greens really asking our police just to do what they think is best?
Yet if the cops use force against some one who is actually breaking the law there is hell to pay.
What a blatant double standard.
Sounds like forced ideology to me.
October 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Oh Shunda,
“who teaches the police about “judgment”?”
The academy perhaps? This may well be an issue of concern, but it was the fact before s59 was repealed and is still the fact after.
“So it all comes down to an individual officers personal opinion on dicipline?”
I seriously doubt it. The law is about assault and the police I’m sure are not left entirely to their own devices, but will have to operate within certain boundaries in determining if assault has occurred.
“Are the greens really asking our police just to do what they think is best?
No, wider society, by giving the police this power long before the Greens existed did that. But as I said above, they won’t be operating on whim either.
“Yet if the cops use force against some one who is actually breaking the law there is hell to pay.”
They have standards and procedures around this too. If they step outside, there should be a price to pay.
“What a blatant double standard.”
Only if you insist on not understanding how they operate.
“Sounds like forced ideology to me.”
If you twist anything sufficiently, it can seem like someone’s evil ideology. Of course, you could just choose to stop doing this.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Valis it does open up some serious questions on police power and interpretation of the law.
As we have well established on this blog before, one persons good parental dicipline is another persons bad parental abuse.
So that mild smack on the bum in “pack n save” all comes down to which side of the fence the police officer investigating happens to fall on.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Lets give the Police force the powers they need to deal with crime;
1.Tasers.
2.Handguns.
3.Greater arrest and detention powers.
4.More police on the street and less collecting revenue.
5.Remove all the PC nonsense that hampers their ability to gain a conviction.
6.Stop and search powers.
October 7th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Strings, “flicked” was the fathers claim. People who witnessed the event had another version : one of whom was a policeman if I remember.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
“As we have well established on this blog before, one persons good parental dicipline is another persons bad parental abuse.
So that mild smack on the bum in “pack n save” all comes down to which side of the fence the police officer investigating happens to fall on.”
Yes, but they are trained and not given leeway to do whatever they like. That there have been so few reports of police overstepping, could suggest they aren’t being strict enough? Still, I’ll take it over big bro’s shoot first approach.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
# Valis Says:
October 7th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Well not with me, jh. I said I’d had enough a few weeks ago and recommended you read one of the many good books on the subject to educate yourself. Good luck with that.
…………………..
Subject: Application of Tino Rangitiratanga; Valis recommends:?
October 7th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
> Lets give the Police force the powers they need to deal with crime;
1.Tasers.
2.Handguns.
3.Greater arrest and detention powers.
4.More police on the street and less collecting revenue.
5.Remove all the PC nonsense that hampers their ability to gain a conviction.
6.Stop and search powers.
How about enabling some community respect towards policing, respect civil rights not to be surveiled, narc’ed, and snitched, cease militarising the streets and escalating the arms war, use what police we have more effectively instead of the false belief that one more cop will make us incrementally ’safer’, when the sign of sucessful public policy would be one less cop required.
Those who clamour for more police and voting anywhere they are offered are voting for policy failure.
Reiterating again… the highly indicated ‘crime prevention’ is wholesale reform of the ‘war on drugs’ and all its consequences.
It doesnt take courage, it takes common sense.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“Subject: Application of Tino Rangitiratanga; Valis recommends:?”
I’ve read bits here and there over the years and so asked some Greens involved in this area for some specific recommendations. Here are the first few:
Fleras, A. and P. Spoonley, Recalling Aotearoa: Indigenous Politics and Ethnic Relations in New Zealand, Auckland: Oxford Univ. Press, 1999. This comes with a warning that while good, it is rather academic in style.
Then there’s a DVD by Richard Green called Te Whare, available from the Treaty Resource Centre website http://www.trc.org.nz. Could be available in some libraries I suppose. The recommendation was to follow this with “Ka whaiwhai tonu matou’ by Ranginui Walker.
October 8th, 2008 at 9:33 am
“No party can be serious about crime and punishment by ommitting drug policy. End of story. Everything else will just confuse you.”
Blair4Mayor, I just saw this post from yesterday. Our drug policy, which focuses on harm minimisation is here: http://www.test.greens.org.nz/policy/summary/drugs
October 8th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Valis - very good to see the greens still support legal reguation (”Introduce a legal age limit of 18 years for personal cannabis use.”) -
but what is needed is the best minds in the green party activist mix ACTUALLY linking problems of Justice, Health, Law and Order, Crime and Punishment, Social Justice, Truth, Freedom, Honest Policing, and Envirionment to the War on Drugs - Linking all these ‘holistially’ to the Green reform postition on cannabis.
Is that too much to ask in this day and age?
October 8th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I believe we do this now, though in a piecemeal way as issues arise, and I’m not claiming to the depth that you’d like. But that’s the point I guess. You’d like us to make this issue number one, but while we probably agree on almost all the specifics, it is obvious that we don’t see this as the most compelling issue of the day. That’s why I think its good that the ALCP promotes its agenda in the political realm. But I am offended when ALCPers claim we’ve betrayed anyone and are no longer working for this common goal. It is particularly bad to have such a war when our combined voting power is too small to withstand such a feud.