W’hat’s good about the regular radio programmes being on holiday is that they replay some good stuff from the previous year. This programme first broadcast in May is worth listening to.
Chris Laidlaw introduces the interviews with these words:
This week Ideas looks at crime, punishment and rehabilitation. In 1910, that old softie Winston Churchill had this to say about the need to rehabilitate criminals: “We cannot impose these serious penalties upon individuals unless we make a great effort and a new effort to rehabilitate men who have been in prison and secure their having a chance to resume their places in the ranks of honourable industry. The present system is not satisfactory.” A century later the voices of those calling for tougher penalties and a harsher approach are drowning out anyone echoing Winston Churchill’s concerns. Ideas producer Jeremy Rose talks to Chris Elisaia a man – who has spent half his adult life behind bars – and Waitakere District Court Judge Phil Recordon who has sentenced Elisaia to prison more than once. And Chris Laidlaw talks to Victoria University associate professor Michael Rowe about his research which shows some categories of violent crime are actually falling.”
This debate tends now to be framed in terms of “them” and “us,” with “us” engaged in an ongoing war to protect ourselves from “them.” One of its side-effects is to free the “us” category from obligations of goodness beyond those involved with staying on the right side of the law. You can see this sort of thing in TV shows like CSI New York, where the only think that distinguishes the goodies from the baddies is that one is defending the law and the other breaking it – the goodies are as infected with hatred and vengeance as the baddies are.
We will not overcome this tendency until we return to some concept of a shared humanity, and a shared idea of goodness that places obligations on us all. Under such circumstances rehabilitation then becomes meaningful.
Lianne, while i agree with you in theory that Rehabillitation is better then Punishment,Unfortunitly in reality there are certain offenders who do not wish to be Rehabilitated and just wish to carry on offending time after time.
It is completly wasteful of any Govt to spend thousands and thousands of taxpayers money in a bid to fruitlessly help those criminals who dont wish to be Rehabilitated in the first place.
Sure for those who are willing to change their lives i am not in opposition to Govt spending money on setting up rehabilitation programmes for them, but i do beleive that some criminals are simply not helpable because they do not wish to take the help that is offered to them.
Our penal system needs to fulfil multiple functions.
Rehabilitation is certainly one of these, but deterrance and punishment are equally important.
It often appears that Labour policies concentrate on the former at the expense of the latter, whilst poll after poll suggests that most of the population would rather the second and third of these aims were given priority.
This difference between party and people forms part of the current great disconnect – a widespread view that Labour cares more about criminals than victims and at heart is soft on crime.
@George I would have to say that i agree with you ,all three of these ‘functions’ as you called them should have equal importance in any Crime and Punishment policy a Govt creates and implements.
I blogged on this issue simply to provide a link to the interview, which I found incredibly interesting. I am disappointed so few people decided to listen to it. I will pick up on the wider issues that it raises in future blogs. Thanks to those who actually listened to it.
I had heard the interview before reading your blog, although I did not comment on it directly.
My own view is that this foolish “3 strikes ” policy is a cop out. What on earth is the point in long sentances as punishment if no really serious attempts are made to change the behaviour of the individual, I amy well be wrong but locking people away for long periods without any rehabilitaion is surely an abuse of their human rights ??
Would it not be a good thing to have a damaged nasty piece of work go into prison,and upon release we have a useful functional member of society, that doesn’t need rigorous monitoring….
Eg, Clayton Weatherston, a heinous crime but what will we get when he is released back into society ?
@Peter G – what is the point in long sentences? Do you not think that deterrance and punishment are valid aspects of the the penal system? Or the need to protect the general public from dangerous people?
We’re not talking about kitten-loving angels here, Peter. If someone has committed a third crime on the list associated with this law then I don’t think that there’s much question that s/he’s at least a potential danger to society. So a longer sentence removes him/her from society for longer. Less opportunity for the public to be threatened by their violent behaviour.
I’m sure you’re right and that there are some who would argue that such a punishment is an abuse of human rights. But I’m also sure that these would be in a tiny minority compared to the huge numbers who believe that in such a situation society’s primary responsibility is to protect the masses rather than provide the most evil in society with unlimited opportunites to reform. (Judging by polls on a wide range of social issues the split in our society seems to be 10%-15% socially liberal to 85%-90% socially conservative. Political parties would do well to remember this.)
Rights come with obligations, and most would agree that those who ignore the latter should forfeit at least some of the former.
What people are asking for is a back to basics approach. They want something better than the bottom of the cliff approach that the justice system is now. They want something done to address that families are turning out delinquent young adults which is simply tolerated because all the other policies that have created this situation are more important than properly functioning family units.
People’s frustration stems from the fact that the justice system is expected to pick up the pieces of the failure of society to address the creation and perpetuation of dysfunctional families and the children they turn out. As an example the new “boy racer” legislation is pretty tough, it is a necessary step to address the hooliganism that is happening out there on the roads, I don’t think Labour tried very hard to address it in recent office.
Making the justice system do this when these kids are young adults is a blunt instrument made necessary by the wet bus ticket of a youth justice system that Labour introduced in 1989, it would be a far more productive scenario to have a better balance between the two and this is what John Key sought to address with the “boot camps” policy.
All that we have heard from opponents of a tougher youth justice system is that “it won’t work” but neither will rehabilitation of the sort proposed here, unless a person actually wants it. The youth justice system has to reflect the fact that most of the children in it are not being brought up with the right values being taught in their lives by their families. The schools can only do so much. The adult justice system is a very poor way of addressing the lack of proper discipline and values being input into children’s lives when they are growing up. It should be being addressed by youth justice as used to be the case.
George
Can you point to research/analysis that show long and longer sentences actually deter future crime by anyone other than the person who cannot commit certain crimes while in prison?