Why do I have the feeling that the Minister of Justice had not read the Chief Justice’s speech “Blameless babes” before rightly kicking for touch the suggestion to bring in “early release amnesties” as occur in other jurisdictions, but wrongly suggesting that the Chief Justice should not be open about her opinions on tackling crime? I for one want to know what the head of New Zealand’s Supreme Court thinks about these matters – I don’t want to wait until she retires before I gain the benefit of her wealth of knowledge and experience. I don’t agree with the proposal for ‘early release amnesties’ but given that this is referenced in a couple of lines of what is a considered, well-researched and thought-provoking 15 page speech, I would hardly have thought it deserved the wrath of a Minister I thought was one of this government’s exceptional performers. For the Minister of Justice to effectively say ‘we write the rules, you apply them’ suggests a degree of arrogance I have not seen from him before.
The title of the Chief Justice’s Annual 2009 Shirley Smith Address was a reference to the statement made in 1999 by Shirley Smith, New Zealand’s first woman law lecturer, that “we have to find out why blameless babes became criminals”. The Chief Justice identifies concerns about calls for increasingly punitive sentences despite the fact that more punitive sanctions have not made our communities safer and then sets about asking a series of very important questions; questions that she not only has a right to ask, but I would venture an obligation to ask. The Minister says he is interested in the drivers of crime and that is precisely where these questions are directed.
In the speech the Chief Justice traverses the international evidence about whether or not imprisonment is a deterrent to offending or re-offending. This seems to be a perfectly proper line of inquiry. Imagine if the government ordered free access to a drug in response to public demand (including perhaps a referendum) even though all the research indicated that it would cause more harm than good in the vast majority of people, but could assist a small number – the problem being you couldn’t tell in advance which ones would be harmed and which ones could be helped. Would it not be better to set out all the relevant information so that there could be an informed debate, and then leave the decision to an expert body that would make its decisions based on the strict evidence and none of the emotionalism?
And what about the victims of crime? The Chief Justice suggests that there should be a serious assessment of whether the emotional and financial cost of keeping victims in thrall to the criminal justice processes does help their recovery from the damage they have suffered or whether they are re-victimised. This is a vitally important question to ask.
International studies show that re-offending is higher for those sentenced to imprisonment than those sentenced to community-based sanctions and also that the longer the period of imprisonment the poorer the prospects of rehabilitation. So why are we calling for more imprisonment and longer periods of imprisonment when the evidence shows that this can be counter-productive?
So who are the offenders who are filling our prisons? Like the Chief Justice I am not making excuses for the offending I am looking for explanations and potential points of intervention. The prison inmates so often come from a background of family disruption & abuse and lack of educational attainment that the association is self-evident. It is time to address the drivers of crime, which is what the Chief Justice is saying – and actually it’s what the Minister of Justice is saying too. What did happen to that Drivers of Crime Ministerial Meeting I attended earlier this year?
The Chief Justice rightly states:
“All the evidence and all the informed opinions seem to point to the futility of believing that the causes of crime can be addressed by penal policy and criminal justice processes.”
This is what leads her to identify some strategies for reducing the prison population – she uses Finland as an example, being expert led, supported by a political accord that there would be no use of a “fear of crime” as a populist theme, and assisted by media restraint in reporting crime. The public supported the strategy because after a public education programme they understood that imprisonment does not reduce crime and therefore they were willing to turn their attention to what does reduce crime.
On this basis, the Chief Justice proposed
• Community education;
• Intervention strategies for those at risk;
• Better support for probation;
• Increased attention to mental health and substance abuse;
• A frank policy of being prepared to reduce the prison population by management.
It was only in the context of the last bullet point that the Chief Justice posed the question whether we were ready for a range of solutions including the reducing the length of sentences, expanding bail laws and an early release amnesty. If not, she said, we will have to keep building prisons and directing resources into incapacitation – a strategy that Shirley Smith (and many others) had no doubt would not work.
I am disappointed that certain elements of the media have done their usual once-over-lightly job of focussing on the single most controversial element of the paper without addressing what is a thoughtful alternative to those who have nothing sensible or evidence-based to add to the debate we must have if we want to reduce the crime rate. The Herald’s editorial was a stand-out exception and the Press reprinted most of the speech. Given that we need the media to be part of the solution the response to this speech by the broadcast media does not inspire me with optimism.
I am grateful that the Chief Justice has contributed to the debate and I congratulate her for her forthrightness and courage.
Solid post – I read the lecture yesterday and I agree there is a lot of really positive opportunities explored in the speech. My concern is that Labour is seemingly taking a ‘tough on crime’ approach too – and the current political climate is a ‘tough on crime’ consensus.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile exploring the options that Labour have considered, and are considering. Damien O’Connor spent some time looking at the Scandinavian and Nordic justice systems – what was the outcome of that?
The media’s approach to this story in particular shocked me – they firstly failed to even read the damn speech. If they had they would have seen the quite hilarious joke she made about their inevitable response. But rather than just attack them for their profit motivated reactionary headlines Labour should be working with them. Without the fourth estate participating in an informed way on both sides of the debate NZ will suffer the problem we’re living with, and bullshit political consensus.
Thank you for this very thoughtful post Lianne. This is a classic situation where there is a huge divide between what all the research and expert evidence says, and what the general populace “seems” (or at least the very vocal redneck element of it) to want.
I am glad you’ve come out in support of what Sian Elias has said. And I agree the Simon Power’s simple rejection of these suggestions is very silly indeed.
Although I must say Labour hardly covered themselves in glory in this aspect over their last term.
This was a much-needed commentary, especially given Ms O’Sullivan’s fulsome defence in today’s Herald of the Chief Justice. Labour should lead this debate. Mr McVicar and his ilk are running lines that must be opposed in a civilised society. New Zealand is a country in which people expect the rule of law to provide the essential balance between the pain of victims and the rights of the accused. When the McVicars of this world seek to tilt the balance, it is our politicians who must reassert it. Here, Mr Power has failed, and there is political mileage in this for Labour as it protects that balance.
Great stuff Lianne.
200 out of 100,000 blameless babies go onto jail. This is society’s fault. When blameless baby hits prison society has done all the damage. The visionary Dr. Cindy Kiro earlier wanted the state to bar code and monitor all children. Unnecessary instead bar code and monitor those children (and parents) who fit the profile of living in a family that has a background of family disruption & abuse and lack of educational attainment.
We know how society creates criminals profiling of at risk children and subsequent monitoring should proceed immediately. Society needs to help.
The PM says that the Govt has a mandate for tougher longer sentences. Do they? How would the Public express their unease at the burgeoning prison population? A poll? Referendum? Or do we just say the Govt has a mandate because we won the Election?
Great post Lianne. Fran O’Sullivan in the Herald also (!!!) I like her quote that “More powerful than the most powerful army is an idea whose time has come.” Paraphrased.
And are you, and every minister who believes the same, going to stand up in front of the media and say the same thing over and over again so that it propagates through the community?
That’s what you get when you run broadcast media for profit rather than the good of the community. Time to change the charter of government owned broadcast media. We don’t need profit from them but good reporting – something that has been reduced since the 1980s due to them chasing profit.
The community thrives on good communication, where facts are discussed and real solutions are debated.
I’m glad someone in Labour is talking about this. I agree with Jarbury Labour didn’t cover itself in glory on this issue. In fact it was one of the most miserable areas of Labour’s 3 terms in government. It absolutely bought into the law and order auction. Longer sentences, less parole, greater denial of bail, more prisons. The ever increasing prison population is Labour’s legacy. Here’s Phil Goff trumpeting it back in 2004: Tougher laws driving up prison population. Labour failed to have a considered approach to these issues. I hope it will change, but I doubt it. Come election time Labour will probably be talking tough on crime again, as it does every election.
The ODT’s piece on the day the story broke (I can’t remember if it was by one of their reporters or an NZPA piece) outlined a wee bit of the speech’s content, Power’s response, and GARTH MCVICAR’S thoughts on the whole thing! Why was there any need to get McVicar’s opinion? It’s that kind of lazy search-for-a-quote that makes him so prominent in our national discourse, and it’s bloody infuriating.
Thanks Lianne
I have a high level of respect for our justice system and for those who lead it. My father worked in the justice system as a High Court registrar, I have always believed in its robustmess and its attempts to stay outside of politics.
The independence of the judiciary is a critical plank of our democracy. As is the independence (and robustmess) of the fourth estate.
Therefore, when representatives of the judiciary speak publicly, I believe it is incumbent upon us all to listen. Not always to agree, but to respect absolutely their voices and their right to speak.
There are huge challenges and dilemmas for policy and law makers on how to approach crime and criminals.
Despite the successful “lock em up and throw away the key” campaign rhetoric which presses all the fear buttons and satisfies the quest for retribution amongst those who feel powerless, surely it’s our (the policy and law makers) responsibility to truly try to address some of the underlying issues in our society that drive people to crime.
So when our Chief Justice says:
“All the evidence and all the informed opinions seem to point to the futility of believing that the causes of crime can be addressed by penal policy and criminal justice processes.”
… we should listen and take note. And have an informed discussion. I would have thought Simon Power had more nous than to have a kneejerk response. Sadly, I can’t say the same about much of our media.
[...] first, with most commenters on Zetetic’s post on The Standard. Labour Justice spokesperson Lianne Dalziel is too. In another case I might be the second. Danyl Mclauchlan seems to be either in the first or [...]
Yes, it is but you also have to stomp on the “lock em up and throw away the key campaign rhetoric” with facts and figures. You need to show that there’s nothing to fear and that locking criminals up for longer doesn’t work. Then you have to show that addressing the problems that cause crime does.
The interesting thing for me about the Chief Justice’s speech is that she raises a concern that seems to wax and wane depending on the number of people in prison and whether people are actually paying attention to law and order or just the news headlines.
The question CJ raises is couched in her choice of language, the innocent babes thing. This is not just a speech about punishment, in fact I don’t know this is the total sense of what she is saying at all. I think she is raising the affirmative question, the one that asks what are we doing to address the causes of crime. Yes, there are issues to address about the number of people in prison, the Human Rights considerations, but I feel the media as usual is missing why this has struck a chord with Simon Power, and quite a strike it is.
The National Party is one that believes in punishment, three-strikes and you’re out, break the law you go to prison. CJ asks, what are you doing to address the causes of crime. Key will point to his boot camp, his programmes for economic growth combined with employment, although I seek proof of the results, actually, I seek proof of the initiatives to be honest.
The Labour party, and other parties, believes in rehabilitative policy primarily. We have a fundamental belief that people can be good no matter what the extent of the circumstances around those people may be. Not everyone can be “saved”… but the point is the contrast between the two approaches brought about by CJ’s observation of an obvious lack of policy to address the causes of crime.
Mr Power knows this, Mr Power reacted to this, me thinks Mr Power doesn’t necessarily disagree, but that’s beside the point.
Good on Simon Power for speaking out with common sense. Look at our crime rate, and especially the escalation of unprovoked, violent crimes. Cause of crime? Lack of morals and personal responsibility, no respect for right and wrong, no respect for people or decent society. Does Labour still not realise that the public are generally fed up to the back teeth with crime. Just because our prisons are full does not mean we should just dispense with justice and shrug our shoulders. This is partly why National won such a big portion of the vote in last years election, many of us out here are tired of the wet soft on crime approach. Remember the NZ of yesteryear? Safe as houses, don’t lock your front door, give up your seat to the elderly, respect and Christian values.
So Tanya, this still doesn’t explain how you will, or those who think like you will, stem the causation or occurrence of crime… you can lock people up as much as you won’t as far as I care, but that doesn’t stop crime. Murder still happens in states where there is a death penalty, clearly, punishment alone isn’t enough.
Hi Kaine, I believe that a lot of crime out there is caused by people who just refuse to behave as the rest of society does, that have no respect for anyone but themselves, who don’t seem to care that criminal antics are self serving and results in innocent people being effected, I am tired of the left excusing criminials, trying to understand them, shifting the responsibility onto society and away from the self. If someone murdered or mained a friend of yours or a family member say, wouldn’t you want justice done? I’m with Simon Power and National on crime, NZ has been soft on crime for years, but the offending has not stopped, it’s become worse. So soft on crime is not working either – maybe there is a happy medium somewhere!
Wow Tanya, way to destroy both Liane and Dame Sian Elias’ arguments! While they have provided well-balanced, researched arguments with examples such as Finland, you have absolutely thrashed their arguments with “common sense” and “I believe” statements. Why you even bothered posting on this thread I will never know.
So, Clare and Lianne, will Labour be changing its crime and punishment policies?
What happened to free speech? Also part of the duty of a professional is to tell the people who are paying them if, in their professional researched judgement, their employers are making a mistake. (Her employers are the people of NZ not just the National Cabinet). Dame Elias is doing just that. She should be commended.
Labour and National with their punitive approach to appease some strident one issue types spent a lot of money on incarceration which would have been better spent on early intervention and help to at risk families, mental health services, literacy and numeracy intervention in schools, special education and psycological services.
Social cohesion, social programs and fairness in the Scandinavian countries results in a lot less crime than our punitive approach.
Many prisoners are illiterate, in poor mental health or marginalised. I know some people are just socio paths and they should be locked up and the key thrown away, (Corporate assett strippers) but many are young people who have made stupid choices, mentally ill who may be fine with proper support, people who have made stupid mistakes or people who have failed to gain a place and recognition in our society. Many may possibly never re-offend with the right support. We know that if they go through the prison system they will most likely re-offend.
Then we could have more money to lock up real dangers to society such as repeat rapists and murderers for life.
Thanks for your thoughtful responses to this important debate. For those who have commented on Simon Power’s reaction to the Chief Justice’s speech, I simply observe that the government happily responds to the Chief Youth Court Judge and the Chief Family Court Judge when they speak publicly and engage in debate on policy issues in their fields of expertise.
@Sonny Thomas – I spoke to Damien this week to follow up on your question. He said it took 30 years for the accord to really deliver the results they have achieved. That means I won’t be in Parliament when the benefits are realised but we have to start.
@Tanya – Your comments require a whole new blog of its own. I have been studying the underlying drivers of crime as part of my role as Labour’s spokesperson on Justice, but have taken an interest ever since I was first elected to Parliament and was appointed as the associate spokesperson serving with Rt Hon David Lange. I read both Roper Reports and the Victims Taskforce Report on Women’s Experience of Domestic Violence and I was hooked on prevention (not as an alternative to punishment for offending, but taking steps to reduce offending in the first place). Your faith in National’s Minister of Justice is good, because you will be pleased to know that I believe Simon Power will promote changes to his colleagues that will begin to address the drivers of crime – early intervention is the key and the earlier the better.
@George D – I am leading the renewal of our justice policy. Labour’s policy making process is that 5 remits from our regional conferences are submitted to our Annual Conference and I am working with the relevant policy committee finalising those now. I am also engaging with researchers, practitioners, advocacy groups and others to get broader input.
@Kerry Thomas – well said! Appeasement is an issue. We were elected to government on the back of a referendum calling for tougher responses to crime. It is time the public were trusted with the truth about ‘getting what they ask for’. Tanya’s response, although unusual for this blog, is very representative of the vocal minority fueled by organisations who describe themselves as having something ‘sensible’ to add to the debate. That’s why the Chief Justice’s call for community education and an accord with the media is so vital.
[...] the Chief Justice’s speech before you judge it. – Lianne Dalziel, Labour Justice Spokesperson, 18 July [...]
Thanks to you and Charles Chauvel for speaking out in defence of Sian Elias. It is great to see that you two are now Labour’s justice spokespersons. Gives me real hope that Labour will be putting in place the right sort of progressive policies on this issue in future rather than playing to the redneck lobby as the Party has mistakenly done in the past. All power to you.
Actually Tanya, the reason National won the last election is because they have such a large base of ignorant and uninformed supporters who are adverse to scientific evidence and research. The flaw in your argument, and hence your thinking, is that New Zealand has been soft on crime. It hasn’t. New Zealand has been tough on crime and it’s clearly not working. We have been steadily locking people up for longer and for less serious offences, and we have been putting youth offenders in adult prisons and, unrealistically, expecting them to learn their lesson and become model citizens. The problem with National, and its supporters, is that it takes such a narrow minded view of the justice system as being solely about punishment, when the true focus should be on prevention. Why would we pay $100,000 a year to keep someone in prison if we could prevent them from being there in the first place?
My question for you Tanya is, faced with overwhelming evidence and research that longer, tougher prison sentences do not reduce crime (just look at the United States for evidence of that), while shorter community based sentences do, why do you still favour the former? Until people like you are willing to accept, or at least consider, the arguments that have been substantiated time and time again by research and study, and reject or at least challenge the unsupported opinion and rhetoric of people like Garth McVicar, nothing in this country will change with respect to crime and crime rates. One of the problems in New Zealand is that our justice system is owned, and our justice policy hence directed, by people who believe they know better than all of the experts put together. People whose stubbornness and political affiliations blind them to such a large degree that they do more harm then good. We would not tolerate such a situation in our health system, and nor should we tolerate it in our justice system.