1

Tough on Crime or Smart on Crime – The End of An Era?

A Presentation to the Wellington Combined Probus Clubat the Gateway Baptist Church, 33 Park Road, Miramar14 June 2018 by Dr Kim Workman

Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts and ideas with you this morning. Talking about law and order is something of a hazardous occupation, especially within a year either side of a general election. The gloves come off.

Earlier this week, the following blog was posted on David Farrer’s Kiwiblog site;

Kim Workman has six children from two marriages. Doubtless he has many grandchildren.

I want the photographs of Kim Workman’s grandchildren supplied to every paroled violent offender, along with their names, home addresses and where they go to school.

It is just and fair for the Workman family to share in the fruits of Kim’s lifework along with the rest of NZ society.

Oob, Kiwiblog 11 June 2018

I responded just as viciously; For the record, ten grandchildren, and three great grandchildren

Kim Workman, Kiwiblog 11 June 2018 Back came a response;

Kim: but you haven’t given their names and addresses…or even your own, so those “good people” you say the prisons are full of can come calling when they get out…

David Garrett

2

The last comment came as something of a surprise. David Garrett is the legal adviser to the Sensible Sentencing Trust. That he would promote the violation of my mokopuna seemed out of sync with Sensible Sentencing’s concern to reduce victimisation.

In a typical law and order debate, political parties increasingly promote policies which appeal to our ‘gut instincts’ i.e. they feel and sound right, but may not be supported by evidence. Since 1987 New Zealand general elections have relied increasingly on law and order policies which attract that kind of reasoning. Today, I want to discuss some of the key messages that political parties have promoted at elections over the last thirty years, whether those political messages are evidence-based, and whether they will reduce crime. Finally, I want to consider what happens when a political party proposes a new way of doing things, and its likelihood of success.

The 1987 General Election - Rising Crime

Prior to the 1987 General Election, police frustration was growing at the low public and political interest in the growing incidence of crime, which had increased significantly between 1972 and 1992; from 7,471 offences per 100,000 to 13,155, an increase of 76 percent.1 Between 1960 and 1985 recorded violent crime had increased sevenfold, with an 80 percent increase between the years 1980 and 1989 alone.2 The police associated these increases with the rise of organised drug trafficking and related gang activity. The two most prominent gangs were overwhelmingly Māori – the Mongrel Mob and Black Power – which reinforced the view that New Zealand had a serious indigenous crime problem.

National resolved to exploit ‘law and order’ in the manner of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative Party in the 1979 British Election. 3 Criminals, together with bureaucrats, dole-scroungers, ‘yuppies’ and other ‘useless people’ were portrayed as receiving favour at the expense of the taxpayer.4 Offending by Māori, youth and gang crime became key 1 Claire Hamilton, Reconceptualising Penality, - A Comparative Perspective on Punitiveness in Ireland, Scotland and New Zealand, Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, 2014, p.832 Newbold, Greg, The Problem of Prisons: Corrections Reform in New Zealand since 1840, Wellington: Dunmore Publishing, 2007.3 D. Downes and K. Hansen, Hostages to Fortune: The Politics of Law and Order in Post-War Britain, in Oxford Handbook of Criminology, edited by M.Maguire et al. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 4 J. Pratt and P. Treacher, Law and Order and the 1987 New Zealand Election, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 21(3), 253-68.

3

election issues, and National pledged to ‘return law and order to our land’ – National was not afraid to do something about crime.5 As the election grew closer, National called for harsher penalties for rape, and promised a referendum on the issue of restoring the death penalty for murder.

Labour had been caught with its pants down. It had introduced radical neo-liberal reforms in 1984, policies similar to those introduced in the UK by Thatcher in 1979. It had achieved a dramatic economic turnaround, massive deregulation, commitment to a market-led economy, and a shift to indirect taxation. It had begun to target welfare benefits and to de-institutionalise care of the mentally ill; all toward the formation of a ‘new welfare state’.6

On the issue of law and order policing however, it remained wedded to its social democratic leanings, and its position became increasingly out of line with its emphasis on ‘possessive individualism’ and neoliberal economic development. It failed to capitalise on the emergence of the Women’s Movement and failed to convince the public that it was sufficiently concerned about victim’s issues. In its approach to domestic violence, Labour advocated the establishment of rape crisis centres, a ‘men against violence’ strategy, and a therapeutic approach. 7 While these initiatives were evidence based, they were no match for National’s promises of increased prison sentences, and limited parole for violent offenders. Labour played down ‘the law and order’ rhetoric and drew on its vision for a democratic policing model, which relied heavily on community support and participation - but failed to calm the increasing public fear on rising crime, gang violence and disorder, including violent crimes and sexual violence.

Labour managed to win the Election, but it had learnt a hard and valuable lesson; one which it would never repeat. Political scientists at the time described the politicisation of law and order as an activity unique to right wing parties. They were wrong; it was to become an activity of both conservatives and the new left. In this frame, the government actively forms public opinion, and then disingenuously, consults with it... The dependence on ‘law and order’ reasoning, is driven by a combination of

5 National Party of New Zealand 1987. 6 David Lange, "The Welfare State", Mackintosh Memorial Lecture, Scotland, 1986. 7 G. Ford, Research Project on Domestic Disputes. New Zealand Police National Headquarters,Wellington. 1987.

4

‘moral instinct’, usually marketed as common sense, and a ‘tough on crime’ approach.8

In the view of some, the 1999 Citizens Initiated Referendum (CIR), provided the necessary mandate to promote a more punitive society. It asked the question;

Should there be a reform of our criminal justice system, placing greater emphasis on the needs of victims, providing restitution, and compensation for them and imposing minimum sentences and hard labour for all serious offenders?’

The question received 91.75 per cent support from voters. The question was framed by Graham Capill, the then leader of the Christian Heritage Party. According to Pratt,

… it was not one question but, in fact, a series of questions that could be interpreted as being directly at odds with each other – one could vote for restitution for victims of crime, for example, without supporting mandatory minimum sentences.”9

The referendum results were used by both the government and the opposition to reinforce the need for a more punitive regime. Labour lauded the CIR outcome;

‘obviously the Withers referendum … was of great symbolic importance because it gave everyone in this House an idea of the level of concern about crime, our prison system, and the needs of victims’. 10

That view was shared by National,

‘there has been a clarion call from the community for tougher law and order measures’.11

8 Hall, S (1979) "Drifting into the Law and Order Society", Cobden Trust Human Rights Day Lecture,December.9 Pratt, John. A punitive society: Falling crime and rising imprisonment in New Zealand. Bridget Williams Books, 201310 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD), 14 August 2001, Vol. 594, p.10916 (Barnett)11 New Zealand Parliamentary Debates (NZPD), 30 April 2002, Vol. 600, p.15845 (Worth).

5

The Minister of Justice, the Hon Phil Goff, went further. In 2000, he warned judges to take note of public sentiment and expectations when sentencing, on pain of losing their discretion and autonomy:

“a worrying large number of people no longer have full confidence in the judicial system”.12

and:

“public opinion does not take kindly to being ignored, particularly when there is a suspicion it is being dismissed arrogantly”.13

In advance of the 2002 legislation, Goff encouraged Judges to make more use of maximum penalties, claiming that:

‘the current law relating to sentencing does not adequately ensure that … sentences reflect the seriousness of offending’.14

A “tough on crime’ war developed, with the two main political parties outbidding one another in a public muscle-flexing exercise, aimed at attracting the support of the general public.

The Sentencing Act 2002 was innovative, in terms of the amount of legislative guidance that it offered to judges. It codified sentencing purposes and principles; listed aggravating and mitigating factors; required judges to impose the maximum sentence or something close to it in the worst cases; and established a hierarchy of sanctions. It also left a great deal of residual judicial discretion.

12 The Dominion, 26 February 2000:3. );.13 The Press, 26 February 2000: 114 ‘Sentencing and Parole Reform Details Released’, New Zealand Herald, 15 March 2001, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=177396

6

Following the introduction of the Sentencing Act, National complained that the prisons were not filling up fast enough.

“opposition politicians…question if the new laws are any tougher. They say the projected prison population increase is less than that expected before the law was changed.”15

The pressure on the judiciary continued after the introduction of the Act. Dr Don Brash promised even more when launching National’s law and order policies in 2004:

“I don’t intend to recite a lot of statistics to make my case. We all know that New Zealand has a terrible record. It is in front of us each day . . . Every day the media carry stories of horrendous crimes”.16

In this instance, penal policy was announced without any reference to fundamental statistical data; including a proposal to abolish parole; a proposal that was estimated to increase the prison population by about 50 per cent.

What was public opinion at the time? After Dr Brash’s law and order speech, delivered at a Sensible Sentencing Trust conference, a TV1 opinion poll showed that respondents favoured parole with safe guards, rather than the abolition of parole. In an opinion poll conducted for TV3’s Campbell Live, 56 per cent favoured community punishments rather than spending more money on prisons.

Research at that time consistently showed that the general public overestimated their own risk from crime; overestimated the proportion of crime involving violence; overestimated the risk of reoffending; and underestimated the severity of sentences. On the other hand, they did not think sentences were too lenient once acquainted with the facts. Media coverage did nothing to address this. Indeed, the media was a primary source of public misinformation.

15 Tougher Laws to Raise Jail Numbers. (2004, March 10), Dominion Post, p. 3.16 D. Brash, Law and Order – a National Priority, address given to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, 4 July 2004

7

The ACT party recommended that New Zealand follow the policy examples of the United States; where imprisonment rates increased 700 per cent from 110 per 100,000 of population in 1975 to 764 in 2011. That view subsequently found its expression in the promotion by ACT of New Zealand’s own “three strikes” legislation; the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010. All this attention to ‘tough on crime’ legislation, and the Bail Amendment Act 2013, has driven the prison rate up, in the face of declining crime rate.

Where do our views on law and order come from? In a recent book entitled. “The Righteous Mind – Why Good People are divided by Politics and Religion’ social psychologist Jonathon Haidt points out that most people rely on their “gut instinct” in talking about law and order.17 Their starting point is their “moral intuition”; i.e. the spontaneous perception that all humans have about other people and the right things to do. These intuitions arise and are embedded in early childhood, well before we develop a capacity for moral reasoning. We mould our moral intuition around our social identity, which is formed as we absorb the values and attitudes of those around us. The moral arguments we mount in support or opposition to critical issues, are usually spontaneous responses which justify our moral intuition, and are referred to as our ‘common sense’. 18. In order for our thinking to change it would require us to apply our moral 17 Haidt, Jonathan, “The Righteous Mind – Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion” New York: Pantehon Books (2012)

8

reasoning skills, which are developed later in life. That becomes more difficult, as acceptance of sound moral arguments, may require us to undergo a shift in our personal values and attitudes.

Most of us perceive the circumstances of our youth as normal and unexceptional – and come to accept the values and attitudes that shaped our early existence as unable to be changed.19 When Garth McVicar talks with fondness about his childhood, and the lack of criminal activity during the 1950s and 60s, he connects that time of peace and order with the values that he and his family held and still hold. In a July 2014 Radio New Zealand interview, 20 Garth McVicar talked about how New Zealand had become a nation ridden with crime and violence and claimed that where once there were one or two murders a year, there were now around 160 homicides a year. But take a look at this graph.

What it tells us is that there has rarely been a time in our history when there were 2 or 3 murders a year, and that the periods 1890 – 1900, and 1980 – 1990 were the two worst periods for murder in our history. The

18 Tom Crompton, “The Common Cause: Working with Our Cultural Values”, Published by WWF UK, Sep 2010. Only available electronically at :www.wwf.org.uk/change.19 Daniel Pauly, 1995. Anecdotes and the Shifting Baseline Syndrome of Fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10. 10:430.20 “Sunday Morning”, 13th July 2014 http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/20141457

9

murder rate, (and the crime rate) rose from the mid 1950s until around 1990, and has been in steady decline since.

The difficulty is that our view of the world and the people round us is so strongly shaped by early experiences, that we do not always keep pace with the changing world, and fail to accept either that things have changed, or that new information is available which challenges our thinking.

In the same way, young people who were raised in poverty, or in violent dysfunctional families, will over ensuing generations, adjust to almost any degree of deprivation or oppression, because they cannot conceive of an alternative – they

“We were raised badly by our own whānau and then ostracized by our own communities. The simple fact is that we don’t know how to parent – we don’t know what being a good parent looks like.”

Gang member, Otatara Awakening Hui, February 2012.

As can be seen in the graph the imprisonment rate rose significantly between 2000 until 2012 in the face a declining crime rate.

10

Criminologist John Pratt, when discussing the impact of public opinion n penal policy refers to the fable of the Sorcerer’s Apprentice: written by Johan von Goethe in the late eighteenth century and included in Walt Disney’s animated film Fantasia, where Mickey Mouse played the role of the apprentice.21

As you probably already know, the apprentice, using magic that he is not fully trained in, enchants a broomstick to do the cleaning tasks the sorcerer has ordered him to do. The broomstick does the job very well at first. The problem is, though, that the apprentice does not know the magic words to make it stop. The floor becomes awash with water. The apprentice, increasingly anxious and fearful at what he has let loose, splits the broom in two with an axe, but each of the pieces continues fetching water at a faster and faster pace, throwing it around causing a massive flood: until the old sorcerer returns, breaks the spell and saves the day. It’s the moral of this story that is important: don’t start something you don’t know how to stop; or, don’t meddle with things that you don’t understand.

21 John Pratt, Punishment, Politics and Public Opinion – The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, Revisited , a Paper presented at the Prison Fellowship New Zealand’s Conference, 2007.

11

Can we Change?

Prime Minister Jacinda Adern, has promised a kinder and more compassionate government, and intends to reduce the prison population by 25% over the next 30 years.

The will to forge change within the criminal justice system, is often constrained by two factors; the public demand for offenders to be punished, and the temptation to generate public fear in order to get votes.

The Public Demand for Punishment

What has been the end result of all this? In December of last year, the newly appointed Minister of Justice Andrew Little, in a speech to the Law Foundation , summarised our current situation.22 The prison population has increased by 20 percent in the last three years. Our incarceration rate is now 220 prisoners for every 100,000 people, when the OECD average is 147.

More than 90 percent of youth offenders have significant learning difficulties. More than three quarters of prisoners have themselves been victims of violence. More than 60 percent of prisoners have had a mental health problem in the previous 12 months, and nearly half have an addiction problem. A significant number have recorded traumatic brain injury. Prison doesn’t seem to have acted as a deterrent. In other words, prisons are serving the same purpose today as they served a hundred years ago, and with the same result. All this has happened in the face of a steadily declining crime rate for the last twenty-five years.

There was no mention of Māori imprisonment in the Minister’s speech, but we know that 52% of the prison population are Maori, and Māori women make up 63% of the female prison population,23 up 5% from five years ago.24

22 https://www.beehive.govt.nz/speech/speech-law-foundation-awards-dinner23 http://www.corrections.govt.nz/news/media-releases/2017_media_releases/waitangi_tribunal_report_on_maori_reoffending/fact_sheet_-_statistics_for_mori_offenders.html24 http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/yearbook/society/crime/corrections.aspx

12

In his speech, Minister Little restated what most people believe to be true – that there is an insatiable public demand for imprisonment and harsh punishment. But the research tells us otherwise.

In 2007, research consistently showed that the general public overestimated their own risk from crime; overestimated the proportion of crime involving violence; overestimated the risk of reoffending; and underestimated the severity of sentences. On the other hand, they did not think sentences were too lenient once acquainted with the facts. Media coverage did nothing to address this. Indeed, the media was a primary source of public misinformation. Nothing has changed.

One of the false assumptions driving political behaviour, is that taking something other than a ‘tough on crime’ approach to criminal justice, will result in voter alienation. Recent poll surveys suggest that is no longer the case, if it ever was. The government has not commissioned a comprehensive survey of public attitudes toward crime and punishment since 2003, so we don’t know really what current public opinion is. We need one urgently, for two reasons. First, public attitudes heavily influence political motivation, and judicial behaviour. Good public policy on crime and punishment issues establishes what social scientists call “the boundaries of political permission” i.e. the limits or borders within which public policy will be supported, or tolerated, by the public.

Second, understanding how the public frames an issue, will help us attain a better understanding of public opinion, and map out our public thinking. The same people that call for increased imprisonment for violent offenders, are also highly supportive of policies that favour rehabilitation over imprisonment, supported expanded drug and alcohol treatment, and the use of noncustodial, community based or alternative sentences with both non-violent and violent offenders. Claims by politicians and “tough on crime” lobby groups that the public want a more punitive approach are

13

not supported by evidence. Research in comparable nations very much support the anecdotal evidence in New Zealand.25 26 27 28 29

In brief, the public generally agree that:

a) Responding to crime involves far more than criminal justice agencies. They see a significant role for schools, for parents, and initiatives which address the causes of crime;

b) Sentencing serves a number of different purposes, according to the characteristics of each case, and the circumstances which contributed to the offending – in this regard, they behave very much like a sentencing judge;

c) Offenders and victims should be treated fairly by the criminal justice system – they do not support approaches that are over-lenient or over-harsh;

d) “Paying back” the victim is a very attractive idea, either through reparation or compensation, or through service of some kind; if that occurs, then they are willing to forego a more severe punishment, such as prison;

e) There has always been strong support for crime victims; every reform that has promoted the needs and rights of victims in the criminal process has met with high public approval.

A 2013 Colmar Brunton Survey commissioned by the Ministry of Justice into Public Perceptions of Crime 30 showed that only five per cent of respondents agreed that prisons deterred people from committing crime, with the same number advocating for harsher treatment, mostly in the 25 Julian V. Roberts and Michael Hough, “Understanding public attitudes to criminal justice.” Open University Press 2005.26 Julian V. Roberts and Mike Hough “Changing Attitudes to Punishment – Public Opinion, Crime and Justice” Willan Publishing 200227 Julian V. Roberts, Loretta J. Stalans, David Indermaur and Mike Hough “Penal Populism and Public Opinion – Lessons from Five Countries” Oxford University Press , 200328 Arie Frieberg and Karen Gelb (ed), “Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy,” Hawkins Press 2008.29 Bobby Duffy, Rhonda Wake, Tamara Burrows and Pamela Bremmer, “Closing the Gaps: Crime and Public Perception” Ipsos Mori Social Research Institute, (200830 Ministry of Justice. (2013). Public perception of crime – survey report. Retrieved from http://www.justice.govt.nz/ publications/global-publications/p/public-perceptions-of-crime-survey-report

14

form of longer sentences. Only six per cent considered that increasing rehabilitation in prisons would increase their confidence in the justice system, while twice that number (11 per cent) favoured community-based rehabilitation.

Generating Fear

Politicians and the media know about fear – and how to generate it. Almost daily offenders are imprisoned, denied parole because they are considered “a risk to public safety”. Since the Labour-led government announced that it would develop a strategy to reduce the prison population, and revoke the ‘three strikes’ legislation, the National opposition, Sensible Sentencing Trust and conservative social media campaign which included an online petition, and daily Kiwiblog menu featuring second strike offenders. It resulted in the Government’s coalition partner withdrawing its support for revoking the ‘three strikes’ legislation.

Tough on Crime or Smart on Crime?

We got some breathing space when a report came out from the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor in March of this year. He made his view clear. Tough on crime vs soft on crime was a simplistic notion, - a response to political positioning and public fear. Successive governments have claimed that prisons can solve the problems of crime, in the absence of evidence. We are responding to dogma rather than data, to shifting ‘silver bullet’ policies and media panic, instead of evidence-based approaches to prevention, intervention, imprisonment and rehabilitation. This does not diminish the importance of incarceration for those individuals who are a genuine risk to public safety.

Where do we go next? In the 1990’s, we turned to the United States for a solution. We need to pay them another visit. Over the last decade, the US prison population has reduced by 14%, and 38 of the 50 States have introduced legislation to reduce the prison population; abandoning three strikes legislation, doing away with restrictive bail laws, making it easier for prisoners to be released on parole, reducing sentence lengths for non-violent prisoners, and reinvesting resources into community-based alternatives.

15

New York and New Jersey led the nation by reducing their prison populations by 26% between 1999 and 2012, at a time when the nationwide state prison population increased by 10%.

California downsized its prison population by 23% between 2006 and 2012. During this period, the nationwide state prison population decreased by just 1%.

During their periods of decarceration, violent crime rates fell at a greater rate in these three states than they did nationwide. Between 1999 - 2012, New York and New Jersey’s violent crime rate fell by 31% and 30%, respectively, while the national rate decreased by 26%. Between 2006 - 2012, California’s violent crime rate drop of 21% exceeded the national decline of 19%.

Overall, the findings are consistent with the predictions that downsizing would have no effect on crime. This seems to be contrary to prevailing political belief; as a recent comment by a New Zealand parliamentarian affirms;

“What exactly is the Government’s plan, short of letting violent criminals out of prison earlier and loosening up bail laws? Unfortunately, these sorts of ideas are typical of the soft-on-crime Labour Party31

What are the factors that were critical to success?

In summary, the case studies showed that:

1. In almost all successful downsizing policies are subject to bi-partisan agreement, between competing political parties.

2. Downsizing policies should be delegated by government to an independent body

3. Opinion polls demonstrate a public willingness to downsize prisons

31 Amy Adams, “Govt has no real plan to reduce prison population ” Media Release, 8th February 2018

16

4. Use big data, i.e. New Zealand has the potential to access Treasury’s Integrated Data Infrastructure and CBAX Cost-Benefit analysis, and its Social Investment strategy, to provide an evidence-based approach to prison downsizing

Imprisonment

For many offenders, incarceration is not more effective at reducing recidivism than non-custodial sanctions.32

For a substantial number of offenders, there is little or no evidence that longer prison stays reduce recidivism more than shorter prison stays.33

Research which matches those sent to prison with those sent to noncustodial sanctions has consistently found no differences in re-arrest or re-conviction rates, both in short-term and in long-term analyses, and even when controlling for individuals’ education, employment, drug abuse status, and current offence.34

For many low‐level offenders, prison terms may increase rather than reduce recidivism.35

The most relevant question to ask is whether imprisonment achieves its intended effects and whether it is more, less, or equally effective as other options for addressing crime.

Probation and Parole Supervision

Probation and parole supervision has focused on surveillance and sanctioning in order to catch or interrupt negative behaviour. However, research shows that encouraging positive behavior with

32 Campbell Collaboration (2015),” The Effects on Re-Offending of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge”, http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/2233 Nagin, Daniel S., et al. “Imprisonment and Reoffending.” Crime and Justice, vol. 38, no. 1, 2009, pp. 115–200. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/59920234 Campbell Collaboration (2015), “The Effects on Re-Offending of Custodial vs. Non-Custodial Sanctions: An Updated Systematic Review of the State of Knowledge”; Nagin, Cullen, & Lero Jonson (2009), “Imprisonment and Reoffending35 Ibid

17

incentives and rewards can have an even greater effect on motivating and sustaining behavior change.36

Frontload resources in the first weeks and months following release 29

Long-term success for offenders returning home from prison is closely tied to accountability and support in the time period immediately following release.

The likelihood of violations and the value of ongoing supervision diminish as offenders gain stability and demonstrate longer-term success in the community.

Remands in Custody

Remands in custody for longer than 24 hours can lead to worse outcomes, particularly for low risk defendants 37

Low risk defendants who are detained for more than 24 hours experience an increased likelihood of failure to appear and new criminal activity during the pre-trial period.

Being detained for the entirety of the pre-trial period is associated with an increased likelihood of new criminal activity post-disposition across all risk categories.

Rehabilitation

Prison based rehabilitation programmes are ethically essential, but do not make any significant impact on reducing the prison population.

If the goal is to develop strategies that result in significant downsizing, resources should therefore be directed toward should desistance-focussed community supervision strategies.

36 Wodahl, Garland, Culhane, & McCarty (2011), “Utilizing Behavioral Interventions to Improve Supervision Outcomes in Community-Based Corrections”, http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/38/4/386.abstract,37 Lowenkamp, VanNostrand, & Holsinger (2013), “The Hidden Cost of Pretrial Detention”, http://www.pretrial.org/download/research/The%20Hidden%20Costs%20of%20Pretrial%20Detention%20%20LJAF%202013.pdf . Note: For this population, pretrial detention of 8-14 days and 31 or more days were not significantly associated with an increase in odds of failure to appear. Statistically significant differences were found for those who were detained for 2-3, 4-7, and 5-30 days as compared to 1 days or less.

18

Surveillance and Electronic Monitoring

Integrate treatment into surveillance

A combination of surveillance and treatment focused on offenders’ criminogenic needs is more effective at reducing recidivism than supervision consisting of surveillance alone.38

Longer Term Considerations Targeting people convicted of mediocre offences with

inconsequential criminal histories is not going to go very far.

Assess how downsizing initiatives affect the ethnic composition of incarcerated persons. Reductions in populations overall may or may not affect existing disparities in imprisonment depending on the strategies and criteria employed for such change.

Research over many years has shown that older offenders have much lower rates of recidivism than younger ones. Limitations on release of the elderly both lacks compassion and is counterproductive in allocating public safety resources.

Holding people in prison past the age of 40 has demonstrably limited impact on the likelihood of crime

Many crimes are committed by young men in groups. When one of those young men is incarcerated, the group may remain as criminally active. A person who is locked up may be prevented from committing crimes while in prison, but the crimes themselves may occur anyway.

On the average, people with past criminal histories who have remained crime-free for seven years pose the same risk to society as others their age who have never been convicted of a crime. After

38 Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Adult Criminal Justice “Benefit-Cost Results.”. http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost?topicId=2.

19

seven years, a past criminal conviction no longer predicts future criminal conduct.

What Should Happen Next?

We have to stop believing that talkback radio and social media sites represent public opinion. We have to stop dressing up an extreme position and parading it as evidence. The public is not a uniform entity with one single, static viewpoint. It is made up of many differing and changing opinions. Whilst a majority of people may think that the courts are too soft, they also recognise that prison is expensive and damaging.39 People support alternative, non-punitive responses, once they have the opportunity to consider a case in detail. The idea that everyone supports harsh punishment is a vote-gathering delusion.

The Minister of Justice is planning a Criminal Justice Summit in September, to discuss and develop a long-term criminal justice strategy. It is likely to provide for wide public consultation, and an effort to determine what the public are thinking.

Let’s start by reading the Chief Science Advisor report on ‘Using evidence to build a better justice system,40 and Dr Ian Lambie’s report on Youth Offending.41

We have to decide as a nation, whether to rely on policy-based evidence, or evidence-based policy. We have to decide whether we want to be tough on crime, or smart on crime. The government has signalled an intention to take a different approach for the first time in thirty years. We owe it to the government to listen, to debate, and to discuss.

Let’s have a civil and measured discussion, without resorting to threats to send released offenders to violate the children of those we disagree with.

39 Lappi-Seppala, T. (ND). Enhancing the Community Alternatives – Getting the Measures Accepted and Implemented, pp. 94, 95. Retrieved from http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No61/No61_11VE_Seppala3.pdf40 Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Using evidence to build a better justice system: The challenge of rising prison costs, Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, March 201841 Dr Ian Lambie, It’s never too early, never too late: A discussion paper on preventing youth offending in New Zealand, Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, June 2018

20

Recommended Reading1. Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Using evidence to build a better justice

system: The challenge of rising prison costs, Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, March 2018http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Using-evidence-to-build-a-better-justice-system.pdf

2. Dr Ian Lambie, It’s never too early, never too late: A discussion paper on preventing youth offending in New Zealand, Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, June 2018http://www.pmcsa.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/Discussion-paper-on-preventing-youth-offending-in-NZ.pdf

3. Kim Workman, Downsizing Prisons – A Discussion Paper(2018)https://www.criminologycollective.nz/2018/02/28/downsizing-prisons/

4. Kim Workman, A New Zealand Mega Prison – Will it Work? – A discussion Paper (2018)https://www.criminologycollective.nz/2018/03/05/a-nz-mega-prison-will-it-work/

5. Kim Workman, If Prisons are a Cause of Crime, Why Not Reduce the Numbers? (2015)https://www.criminologycollective.nz/2017/04/19/reducing-prison-numbers/

6. Kim Workman, What Do I Have to Do to Change Your Mind? – Changing Public Attitudes toward Crime and Punishment (2014), https://www.criminologycollective.nz/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/What-do-I-have-to-Do.jpg

Kim Workmankim@kiwa.org.nz(06) 362 6453