On Wednesday Prime Minister John Key delivered a speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust conference (sponsored by the National Party, Labour Party and ACT) at Parliament. It was a predictable presentation which avoided the obvious truth that if New Zealand ever had a policy with “economic disaster” written all over it then it’s our crime and imprisonment policy.

Here is the speech John Key should have given:

Kia ora koutou e hoa ma,
Thank you for the invitation to speak today. As Prime Minister I’m particularly pleased to be here because I’ve developed serious misgivings about the influence of your organization on the health and wellbeing of New Zealanders not to mention our economic policy. We all want safer communities and the victims of crime supported but SST is pushing policies which are having the opposite effect. Let me explain.
In the past, many victims have been badly let down by the government. For example the Accident Compensation Corporation recently agreed to reinstate funding of counselling for all victims of sexual assault. That funding should never have been removed and I apologise for my government’s financial pressure on ACC which led to the decision. Sexual assault victims deserve much better and we will be there to make sure such decisions are not repeated.
Your own organisation has also let down victims. I recall your spokesperson Garth McVicar supporting the criminal instead of the victim when he defended the knife-wielding assailant who chased, attacked and killed a young boy who had tagged the killer’s fence. Did anyone here call on the family of the young brown boy to offer support? No, I didn’t think so. It seems the rights of victims are paramount to SST when they are middle-class but we know that the victims of crime in New Zealand are predominantly working class, poor and frequently brown.
Your organisation has called for tougher prison sentences and both the previous Labour government and my National government have delivered on this. However, I’ve come to see that longer sentences will not make us safer. I hear shocked gasps from the audience – but it’s true. We won’t be safer. My colleague Rodney Hide makes the point that a person can’t commit further crime while they are in prison and so we have put in place ACT’s policy of three strikes.
I must apologise. We should never have gone along with ACT. I now find out it’s been a disastrous failure in the US where several states follow a similar line. The cost there is in the tens of billions and no one is safer. We have 8839 inmates in our prisons here in New Zealand – not enough, I hear someone heckle – was that David Garrett at the back? Yes I see it was – you’ve been a leader in SST, haven’t you, David? Would it be too much to describe SST as an ACT creation, David? No? Perhaps it’s just the corporate funding from ACT-friendly businesses which is keeping this organisation afloat. And while I’m on finance I see that SST was turned down for tax exempt status with the Charities Commission. Why you applied I’ll never know. The Genghis Khan Appreciation Society was also turned down so your application never had a chance.
Where was I before Garrett interrupted? Yes, our prison numbers are horrendous and at this rate we could even surpass the US and become the western country with the most prisoners per head of population. Is this a statistic that would make us world beaters? Was that a crazed cry of yes, yes, yes, from the back? Garrett again – he seems to be foaming around the mouth. Would someone from ACT please escort him out? Heavens – I didn’t expect to see the whole audience move. Just one will do – he seems to be crawling in the right direction now.
We may be falling behind Australia in the important statistics but I’m determined to beat them at this one and reduce our prison population. With the right policies, including restorative justice, we can make the country much safer while saving billions for community development and providing genuine support for victims. Here’s some homework for the Trust. Find out which Scandinavian country has severely reduced its prison population in recent years while making the country safer for everyone. I know the truth is sometimes hard to stomach but victims deserve to hear what really works rather than have to listen to half-baked soundbites from bullies.
But it’s time I addressed the causes of crime. The speech notes prepared by my press secretary say the main causes of crime are illegal drugs, alcohol and brown working-class kids who need army-style
What Key should have said on crime | Stuff.co.nz Page 1 of 4
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/national/politics/4067652/What-Key-should-have-said-on-cri… 30/08/2010
discipline.
But let me be totally honest – these are just symptoms of the problem and no matter how much we massage the truth there is no society anywhere which has become safer focusing on such approaches. I must say I’m embarrassed to think I’ve been part of a long line of politicians who have manipulated the truth about crime for electoral gain.
Back to the causes of crime. I want to share with you a book I’ve read recently called The Spirit Level, which shows that violent crime rises in societies as the gap between rich and poor increases. I’ve read this book, read the criticisms from the book’s detractors and in turn the responses of the authors. It’s not the whole answer but it gives us a clear steer how to reduce crime and create a safer, healthier, happier society.
I think it’s so important I’ve ordered copies for all National and ACT MPs – on second thoughts I’ll cancel the copy for David because the book has no cartoons.
I’ve sent an email to Phil Goff suggesting he do the same for Labour MPs because Phil has spent more than 10 years trying to outdo ACT at the extreme margins of the debate on law and order. Phil has led New Zealand further down a blind alley on crime than any other single MP – Garrett included. Phil has even agreed to have this dead end conference co-sponsored by the Labour Party. I’m ashamed National put its name to this conference. It won’t happen again.
I want to finish by expressing my anger at what I see as the abuse of victims by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. SST is not working with victims to get them through the most difficult time of their lives. Instead it is re-victimising these people again and again by locking them into a lifetime of regurgitating their pain and hatred by encouraging them to wallow in endless self pity. Some of your victims are deeply tragic figures and SST is wrong to use and abuse them for political effect.
Every victim I’ve ever met says to me they don’t want anyone else to have to go through the same trauma as they have. Let’s take up that challenge together. Work with me to reduce inequalities in New Zealand and protect future generations from the effects of bad economic policies.
Thank you all for listening. I know it’s not the speech you were expecting but as Prime Minister I sometimes have to lead in telling the truth even if it means Garth’s blood pressure reaches dangerous levels.

An Upper Hutt man has been served with New Zealand’s first warning under the controversial “three strikes” law after being convicted of groping a woman.
Dwyane Christopher Mercer, 32, was convicted in Upper Hutt District Court last week after pleading guilty to indecently assaulting his friend’s partner. Indecent assault is one of 40 serious violent offences that attract “strikes” upon conviction. The law came into force on June 1….

Judge Tom Broadmore warned Mercer he would be given a second strike if he committed another of the 40 offences, and would consequently serve a jail term without parole.
A third strike would bring a mandatory maximum sentence for that crime, also with no parole.
“You will have to tread very carefully in the future,” the judge said. – Dom Post

The 3 strikes law was touted as being for the worst violent offenders only. Parole, one of the few mechanisms available to moderate a prisoner’s behaviour, would only be removed for these offenders. Is Mercer one of these? Or are we seeing the beginning of the downward spiral towards more New Zealanders being thrown into our underfunded and violent prison nation? This seems increasingly likely, especially in light of National’s prison privatisation aspirations.

In Monday’s news we heard that no charges were being brought after an Aboriginal man died in a Western Australian prison van, where he had a 4 hour ride without ventilation in 50 degree plus temperatures that gave him 3rd degree burns. He had been provided with 600ml of water as they took him for the long ride to court to face a drink driving charge.

The van was being run by G4S, a large Australian/UK prison company who, if privatisation of prisons occurs here, will be most the most likely candidate. Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident in Australia. In 2005 G4S subsidiary GSL was fined $500,000 after staff refused detainees water and access to a toilet on a seven‐hour bus trip between the Maribyrnong and Baxter detention centres. The death of a man from an unattended asthma attack amongst other deaths and violations failed to stop them recently being awarded another contract in Melbourne.

Other issues with privatisation? If an organisation stands to profit from jailing people there is little incentive for that organisation to see crime rates drop. From a purely business point of view there is surely a big incentive for the private prison operator to make sure their customers become regular customers… good timing with the 3 strikes law then I guess.

More information on 3 Strikes: here, here, and here.

And a great podcast from bFM regarding smoking, privatisation and the state of the New Zealand prison system:
http://www.95bfm.com/assets/sm/196145/3/PeterWilliamsSmokingPrisons.mp3

via Radio New Zealand News : Stories : 2010 : 06 : 14 : Justice Minister looks at alternative systems overseas.

The ‘highlights’ of the report tell us that:

Inmates incarcerated under the three strikes law (striker inmates):

- Make up 25 percent of the inmate population as of April 2009.
- Receive sentences that are, on average, nine years longer-resulting in about $19.2 billion in additional costs over the duration of their incarceration.
- Include many individuals currently convicted for an offense that is not a strike, were convicted of committing multiple serious or violent offenses on the same day, and some that committed strikeable offenses as a juvenile.

- Inmate health care costs are significant to the cost of housing inmates. In fiscal year 2007-08, $529 million was incurred for contracted services by specialty health care providers. Additionally:
- 30 percent of the inmates receiving such care cost more than $427 million.
- The costs for the remaining 70 percent averaged just over $1,000 per inmate.
- The costs for those inmates who died during the last quarter ranged from $150 for one inmate to more than $1 million for another
- A significant portion of the increased workload due to medical guarding and transportation is covered through overtime.
- The large leave balances of custody staff, to which the furlough program has contributed a significant amount, will eventually cost the State from $546 million to more than $1 billion.

Rev. Ron Givens, who visited New Zealand recently warning against us adopting a similar regime, told us that the Californian State budget spends almost 18% of its budget on Corrections, and less than one per cent on primary school education.

Does that sound like the sort of social spending, or indeed the sort of society, that we aspire to?

Source: Green Party MP David Clendon blog

“This Government is not interested in what is fair or what is just. They’re not genuinely interested in Maori issues as we saw with what John Key did to Tuhoe. They’re trying to present a nice face but it’s crumbling and we’re starting to see the real National Party, their real attitudes to Maori in particular come through,” Ms Turei says.

Maori already are more likely to be arrested and face longer sentences than non-Maori for similar crimes, so they are likely to run out of strikes much faster.

Under New Zealand’s new three strikes law, once an offender is convicted of a third serious offence the judge will have to impose the maximum sentence for the crime. The offender will not be eligible for parole while serving time for their third offence.

The law, which National and Act have agreed to pass, opens the way for huge inconsistencies in sentencing. Although ACT’s Rodney Hide suggests that our law is unlike the California three strikes law, it is clear that we are similarly unprepared for the “unintended consequences” of this law. For example, more Californians are serving life sentences under the 3 strike law for drug possession then for second-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon and rape… combined.

So the argument is that the 3 strikes regime set out in the National – Act bill is not the same as in California, but it does lead us down the same path, pretending that tougher and longer sentences will make us safer, despite all the evidence that the outcomes from such regimes are always that inmates, prison officers, police and the public will be less safe if this goes ahead.

In essence what it does is take away the judicial discretion and replaces it with a system that simply doesn’t work. Other options could include lengthening sentences for violent crime giving judges more room to extend punishment instead of creating a system which is unable to take into account unique circumstances.

So it’s not surprising that the Corrections Association and the Maori Party are opposed to this bill.

Source: TangataWhenua.com

For more information of the Californian law,  see this post.

The two MPs will start off proceedings by presenting their own views on the policy and then attempt to respond to or refute one another. The debate will be followed by comments from our panel of experts who will discuss the presentations and direct questions to the debaters if they choose. The panel will be composed of Garth McVicar, coordinator of The Sensible Sentencing Trust, Audrey Lang, Field Director of PARS, Manawatu and Fr. Jim Consedine, former Prison Chaplain and Restorative Justice Pioneer. There will be an opportunity for the public to ask questions followed by refreshments in the Parish Hall.

Were this policy to become law it could require a significant change in the prison programmes of the Department of Corrections. It would mean moving away from programmes aimed at community reintegration of all prisoners to include a programme of managing the permanent incarceration of those prisoners convicted for the third time.

The debate will take place at the Diocesan Centre off Amesbury St. behind the AA and the Cathedral on Broadway in Palmerston North, between 1 pm and 4 pm on Saturday May 8th. The organisers will provide tea and coffee at the end of proceedings and are asking for a gold coin koha/donation to cover their expenses. All are welcome. For more information, contact Rex Begley at the Palmerston North Diocese; Phone: 06 354 178, Ext. 845.

Feel free to copy and distribute the following flier:

Flier

The purpose of the bill is to create a 3-strike system of increasing consequences for repeat violent offenders.

There are 37 offences identified in the bill that are eligible for a strike against offenders.

An offender qualifies for each strike if they receive a determinate sentence of imprisonment of five years or more, life imprisonment or preventive detention (a qualifying sentence) for a specified serious violent offence. The three stages are as follows:

First offence = standard sentence and one strike

Second offence = sentence without parole, 2nd strike

Third offence = maximum sentence without parole (however, courts are allowed to overturn this in favour of a lesser non-parole sentence if the maximum would be “manifestly unjust” in the circumstances.)

The proposed policy effectively transfers sentencing discretion from the judiciary to the police. Rethinking Crime and Punishment have pointed this out with the following situation: “Under the proposed legislation, the police could for example, lay a charge of assault of aggravated injury against an offender, which is a three strikes offence. They could then plea bargain with the offender, and reduce the charge to aggravated assault, which is not eligible, on condition that the offender pleaded guilty to the lesser charge. Police ‘overcharging’ is a major issue in New Zealand, with around 10 percent of all charges laid by the police being subsequently withdrawn.”

From the risks and impact section of the Bill: “It is not possible to conclude with any certainty to what extent any of the options will improve public safety. There is a possibility that removing the worst repeat violent offenders from the community for longer periods of time will result in less serious violent offending in the community. …. most research has found that imprisonment has little if any specific deterrent effect. There is a great deal of evidence indicating that offending rates decrease only marginally as a result of penalties being increased.”

“There is a risk that punitive measures such as these policies will increase the level of punitiveness in the criminal justice system generally, which will increase costs across all parts of the criminal justice sector.”

The Bill also states that the impact of the legislation on prison capacity will be felt after 10 years, when a total of 25 additional prison beds will be needed to accommodate prisoners sentenced under the policy. This number will increase to 46 after 15 years and to 70 after 20 years. It is estimated that when the full effects of implementation have been felt after 50 years, an additional 132 prison beds will have been needed.

It is an empty political gesture, pandering to populist “common sense” – that longer sentences obviously equal a safer community.

The bill can be found here

Jackie Katounas, the Prison Fellowship Restorative Justice Services Manager, describes it as: “A great insight into what people experience within the context of the Sycamore Tree programme – well worth watching and recording!” – Jackie says “It’s fabulous…..!”

Be sure to watch this screening. And can someone record it for me please? I haven’t got a telly.

A group of organisations throughout New Zealand are working together to reduce any threat to the 2007 law.  More information on the referendum and how the law is working is available on the vote yes website.

As is so often the case a complicated issues is broken down into polar opposite simplistic positions. Maybe this is an inevitable result of the amount of information bombarding us from every media outlet competing for our consumer buck. Consider the way I chose the title of this post. One short line has to catch your attention. Polemic works best.

There was so much of value that was lost during the last debate, is this our second chance? The poll is so badly written that is favours one outcome. “Should a smack as part of good parental discipline… ” Well the answer is right there in the question, good parenting has been written in. We are not asking whether a smack is part of good parenting; but when it is should it be illegal. We are not really engaging with what good parenting might look like at all. There are all sorts of issues that are lost with the type of debate we see around high profile emotive bills. For example: Is time out – or love withdrawal – any better?

No disrespect to the people who have written the question for the referendum. When you see things a certain way and feel strongly about them, it becomes hard to see the bias. (It happens often in the polls on this site).

How about finding a way to set the debate in the direction we actually want behaviour to go? How about a bill that makes ‘not playing with your children in the evenings’ a criminal offence in New Zealand.