Prisons and Tobacco

Going Up in Smoke

We have argued previously that in New Zealand, prisons and prison policy are an unholy mess. This is unlikely to change--at least in our lifetime--and probably not in several lifetimes. The fundamental reason for this intractable mess is that non-Christian societies have no sustainable foundation for justice. The bottom line is that non-Christian societies in general, and secular humanist societies (of which New Zealand is one) cannot settle upon any principle or dogma that defines justice per se.

It is all a big slough of shifting quicksand. Prisons are supposed to "deal to" criminals. But our society cannot--is unable--to decide whether this "dealing to" involves administering retribution, enforcing restitution, enabling rehabilitation, reducing crime, or protecting society from rapacious criminals. It end up running all these "lines" at the same time--and failing in all--since they are contradictory and work at cross purposes.

Moreover, our society has no basis to distinguish between sins and crimes: it ends up criminalising what ought not to be subject to the interdiction of the state, and decriminalising what ought to be. Abortion--a murderous act--has been decriminalised. Indeed it is propagated, supported, promoted, and funded by the state which is supposed to administer justice. On one hospital floor medical professionals will be exerting all their powers to save the life of a prematurely born baby. One floor above, they will be ripping a baby asunder and killing him or her. Confused? Inhumanly so.

On the other hand, the law of the land has criminalised acts of parental discipline of children but our Prime Minister has instructed the police not to apply the law. Confused? Ridiculously so.

Unbelief has no rational consistent criminal policy because it cannot define or settle the key issues attached to justice. It has no ultimate or absolute frame of reference--and as Sartre once said, a finite point, without an infinite reference point cannot have any definitive meaning.

So, in our society issues of justice, crime, and punishment comes down to whimsy around which a political consensus can swarm, albeit it fleetingly. So, one government administration will be committed to reducing the "crime rate." Its solution will be to shorten prison sentences, expand parole, and increase non-custodial sentences so that fewer recidivist, hardened criminals will be forged like orcs in the caverns of our prison system. Then the public will become outraged; the pendulum will swing. A new administration will be elected which is committed to (you guessed it) reducing crime rates. But the solution this time will be longer sentences, harsher prison conditions, less parole. The real world becomes more like a parody of Monty Python every day.

We are currently in a "harden up, get tough on crims" phase. The Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins has announced that within a year smoking will be banned in prisons. True to our madding Monty Python world of "we know better than God," four contradictory reasons have been advanced for this startling innovation: preventing prisoner access to dangerous materials (lighters, matches); making prison less palatable for prisoners (two thirds of whom smoke, we are told in a NZ Herald article); enabling prisoners to kick tobacco addiction--thereby achieving a nannying public health goal; and protecting prison officers from second hand smoke (in compliance with the law of tobacco free work places). This last reason is particularly a hoot, since the same Herald article tells us that half of corrections staff are smokers and the under the ban they, at least, will still be allowed areas where they can continue to smoke freely while at work.

So, which is it? What is the real reason for the change? All of the above? Which means none of the above. Our prediction? A very, very messy outcome. The unintended consequences will be huge. Bureaucratic boondoggles will abound. Last time we checked classified drugs were illegal in prison but drug use continues unabated. Now, tobacco is going to become a classified drug in prison, and two thirds of the prison population are addicted. Good luck with that one.

Let us ask a few simple questions: what has banning tobacco got to do with a person and his criminal act(s)? Nothing. Will it restitute the victim of the crime? Not at all. Is it an act of retributive punishment? Maybe, but the result is more likely higher smouldering anger and resentment. Will it help reduce recidivism? Nah.

Then, why is the government doing this again? The only understandable and defensible answer is to ensure compliance with the Smoke Free law. But if that is all it is (as we suspect is the case) the rest of the "reasons" advanced are smoke screens to appeal to other whimsies which float around our nation's prison policy. But why the smokescreen? Because to focus solely on the Smoke Free law as the overriding rationale would be to expose that particular piece of nannying legislation to ridicule, and risk reasonable people beginning to call for that egregious extension of state power and interference to be modified or changed. And that would never do.

So, to "sell" the idiotic, let's position it more in terms of public health, and more about what would be really good for prisoners in the long run. Prisons will be "framed" as the health and welfare reformatory to create the New Model Man. In anti-Christian societies, bad ideas get endlessly retreaded.