Crime and Punishment

What Do You Mean “It Won't Work”?

In recent days the National Party of New Zealand has unveiled its policy on crime and punishment. It is calling for a kind of “three strikes” approach where violent offenders who commit crimes repeatedly will be denied parole—that is, they will serve out the full length of their sentences. In the case of murderers who have been sentenced to life, it means that they will never be released, but will die in prison.

The response to the policy has been predictable—but once again, it highlights the very essence of Athenian idolatry.

The first type of response has come from the ordinary person in the street: that is, the person who lives and works and minds their own business on Main Street. They believe crime should be punished. They also believe—apparently simplistically—that it is a fundamental responsibility of the State to keep them safe from violent criminals. They believe that criminal acts should have a condign punishment. The ordinary person believes in retribution and protection. Prison sentences serve both objectives. They like the National Party policy.

The second type of response has come from persons in Boulcott Street—people associated with government and the justice system. They see the policy as negative, costly, superficial, and bound to fail. It is the claim that the policy will not work that intrigues us the most.

What can Boulcott Street possibly mean when it says that the Nation Party policy will not work? Against what measure or standard, we politely ask. Well, the first measure proffered is cost. New prisons will be needed; they are expensive to run; keeping people in prison for a lifetime is very costly. Now this fiscal argument is rich indeed. The denizens of Boulcott Street are usually at the forefront of calling for vastly increased government spending on just about everything imaginable.How come they have suddenly become cautious about spending?

However, we take the point. It surely will be more expensive. But this begs a question as to whether it is a fundamental duty of the government to ensure that crime is judged and punished. If it is, then spending more money to ensure that the government carries out one of its fundamental responsibilities simply needs to be done. The government will just have to stop wasting money on things that are patently not its responsibility such as supporting the World of Wearable Arts, Te Papa, and the Racing Industry—and endless other pork barrel initiatives.

The second reason given for the National Party policy being doomed to fail is the impact upon criminals. We are sonorously and condescendingly told that if a criminal is locked up for life it will remove any incentive for reformation. All hope will disappear from the human breast of the lifer. He or she will have no incentive to change their lives so that they can get out. In other words, rehabilitation will not succeed.

Boulcott Street measures penal success in terms of redemption and rehabilitation. Anything which encourages or helps achieve redemption and rehabilitation so that the criminal can be re-admitted to society and live a normal (non-offending) life is to be actively encouraged. By definition life imprisonment prevents that taking place—so, by definition, the National Party policy will be a failure.

However, may we demur ever so slightly? We know that it is very difficult for ordinary people to operate in the dizzying intellectual and spiritual heights of Boulcott Street, but maybe, just maybe you have got this wrong.

In the first place, we understand that this policy will be applied to repeat offenders. In other words it will apply to those who are rapidly proving themselves to be resistant to rehabilitation. Or are you telling us that the redemptive power of the State is so great, so sovereign, so irresistible that no criminal is beyond change or redemption or restoration? Or that no-one can ever be classified as irremediable?

Secondly, the policy calls for a removal of parole. So if a repeat violent offender is sentenced to ten years, he or she will serve the full ten years. In what way does this mean that hope for redemption or restoration is removed? We don't understand how that could be. We understand how the present system works. A ten year sentence means serving only five and then maybe early parole if someone goes through the hoops (like attending anger management and other behaviour modification courses). So hardened criminals know that they will soon be out, and that in the meantime they can strengthen their ties in the underground criminal confederation, and brush up on the latest criminal techniques and methods. Please explain how this gives an incentive toward rehabilitation.

We cannot see how there is any incentive towards rehabilitation under the present soft-sentence system. Similarly, we cannot see how serving a full ten years presents any incentive towards rehabilitation either—and that is the point. The purpose of sentence is retribution, not redemption.

Now, we hasten to add that this does not mean that we are not interested in the rehabilitation of prisoners. We definitely are. We in Jerusalem work constantly for it. But what it does mean is that the sentencing of the courts should not in any way be focused upon prospects for rehabilitation—it is not their place, not their duty, not their competence. As soon as considerations of rehabilitation get mixed up in sentencing, injustice inevitably is the outcome. Rehabilitation needs to be fomented in other ways, by other agencies, and other institutions. It is not a function of the Ministry of Justice.

Thirdly, Boulcott Street should focus upon the real incentives implicit in the National Party policy. The policy provides a warning to those who would offend repeatedly. Each repeat offence carries greater penal consequences. We believe that this policy puts the incentives right where they should be: it gives a strong incentive for those who have served time and are now out not to get involved in crime again.

Finally, the National Party policy is realistic. It faces up to the fact that some people are so given over to evil, for whatever reason, they have made violent crime a calling. The only appropriate condign punishment for such as these is to replace a career of crime with a career of incarceration. The fact is that under National's policy such a threat would hang over the repeat violent offender and were he or she to persist in re-offending it would offer adequate ground to regard them as career criminals and treat them accordingly.

Now we are well aware that within Athens the politics of guilt and pity is regnant. Athens really does believe, deep down, that for every criminal act, we are all to blame. Society is guilty insofar that if society had been more perfect (read, more government spending on health, education, and welfare) there would be no more criminals. Secondly, Athens is constantly looking for a way of assuaging its guilt—and being inordinately kind to criminals is one way of making atonement. “Look, we are sorry. We all screwed up. Let us make it up to you,” is the implicit, unspoken mantra of Athens as it addresses the criminals amongst us. It is why redemption and not retribution lies at the heart of Athenian penology.

Meanwhile, Athens would prefer to have the innocent preyed upon—beaten, viciously assaulted, and killed. It is much less of a problem. In the end it helpfully serves to confirm how truly guilty we all are, and how society is such a momentous failure. And that in turn gives a delicious poignancy to Athenian pity for the criminal.

Given this perverted mind, it is no wonder that Boulcott Street says the National Party sentencing policy will not work. We would expect nothing less from that madding crowd.