The fundamental thesis of the book, Badlands is that criminality has risen exponentially in New Zealand in the last fifty years because of radical changes in the criminal justice system. Government policy has been to blame. The danger of this thesis is that it risks becoming the mythical silver bullet: change the policies of criminal justice in New Zealand and crime will reduce.
We are in no doubt that a change in criminal justice policies, in sentencing, is much needed and will have a significant impact upon crime in the country. The reason is that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by a very small group of hardened recidivist offenders. But the causes of crime against property and persons are manifold and complex. Changes in sentencing will help: they will not remove criminal activity entirely. Even as society advocates for radical much-needed changes in sentencing policy, it must not over-promise or raise expectations that such changes would mean that criminal offending would cease and that crime would be eradicated.
One problem to be addressed is the fundamental confusions that swirls around penology in this country. There are three objectives constantly cited in the matter of dealing with crime--which are often at cross purposes. The first objective seeks retributive punishment in our sentencing and criminal justice policies. The second seeks rehabilitation of the criminal back into the community. The third seeks protection against future criminal acts by recidivist criminals. All too often these three--punishment, rehabilitation, and community protection--work against each other. If community protection is the prime objective, longer prison sentences will trump all other policies in the criminal justice system. If rehabilitation of the criminal back into the community is the prime goal, then non-custodial sentences, coupled with training, education, and social welfare for the criminal become the absolute priority. If punishment for criminal acts is the primary goal and responsibility then inflicting pain, hardship, and thorough-going inconvenience upon the convicted criminal is essential.
Public debates about the criminal justice system reflect ships passing in the night because the protagonist of one of the three objectives sees all criminal offending and punishment through his particular prism (say, rehabilitation) and his opponent sees everything through the prism of community protection. The ships sail past each other, lobbing broadsides at the each other, but never striking a mortal blow--making the public debate unceasing, wearying, and without any progress.
The critical way-point in the debate is to recognise that all three aspects--punishment, rehabilitation, and community protection--have validity and a sane criminal justice system must employ all three. The crying need is to develop criminal justice policies which enable all to work together, without working at cross purposes, tearing each other down.
In Badlands, David Fraser tends to focus a great deal upon community protection, and therefore emphasises the need for longer, more severe jail sentences [David, Fraser, Badlands--NZ: A Land Fit For Criminals (Kaukapakapa: Howling at the Moon Publishing Ltd, 2011.)] Yet he does concede there is need for gradation in sentencing. There is also a need to have the three core objectives in criminal sentencing change over a career of criminal offending. There are times and periods when rehabilitation ought be more important and to the fore; there are other periods (later in a criminal's career) when community protection must become paramount.
He makes the following observation about Singapore's criminal justice system:
Although Singapore's success in deterring crime is largely due to its greater use of prisons than many other countries, it is not the only aspect worth noting. Singapore puts a great deal of energy into rehabilitative efforts for offenders but only those with one or two previous convictions It has understood the lesson, ignored by New Zealand justice officials, that it is a waste of resources to try and encourage persistent criminals with long histories of crime, to reform. Singapore's attitude is uncompromising. Beyond a certain threshold, serial offenders--those who reappear before the courts for a third time--are dealt with severely by increasingly long prison sentences. (Op cit., p. 34).
He then contrasts this with New Zealand criminal policies:
In New Zealand offenders with far more court appearances than three are frequently given community based sentences, which in theory are supposed to reform them, but in reality simply allow them to continue offending. As a result crime in New Zealand is a staggering 15 times more prevalent than in Singapore. (Ibid.)Over the lifetime of a career criminal there needs be times at which penology must have punishment as its primary focus; at others, rehabilitation; and, particularly when criminality becomes a settled mode of life, community protection must be paramount. This would mean that repeat offending, even for the same offence, would attract longer and longer more severe, custodial sentences.
No comments:
Post a Comment