Carrot and stick must work together to reduce crime

NEW ZEALAND VIEW

We should be happy that the Chief Justice, Sian Elias, has reneged on her New Year's resolution not to enter into controversy. For from her position, she is uniquely placed to give informed, intelligent comment on our criminal justice system. And it is important, particularly in an election year, to have evidence-based debate on sentencing, because crime, justice and personal security are such important issues. So often politicians of all stripes seem to want to subvert robust debate in favour of empty posturing because they want to be seen, and known, as being "on your side". That means that too often the political dialogue is really just a series of insults hurled about a half-empty parliamentary chamber when, of course, none of that hot air helps to make New Zealanders safer. Perhaps it isn't surprising that, in a highly charged political environment, inherently complex issues are reduced to black-and-white sloganeering. Two perfectly reasonable proposals, such as longer prison sentences for serious criminals on the one hand, and, let's say, investing in effective early intervention to try to prevent young people from developing into criminal adults on the other, thus end up being portrayed as if they are incompatible. But that isn't right.

To me, it is a bit like running a family. When the children are young, as parents we try the best we can to teach them to embrace good, solid values by setting the best example we can ourselves. That investment in time and love is "early intervention". Supporting this sort of intervention isn't incompatible with tough love sanctions being imposed on the young teenager who has broken a serious rule: like taking a bottle of uncle's brandy without asking. And just because tough sanctions and penalties are imposed for stealing uncle's brandy, that doesn't mean that I, as a father, am going to wash my hands of the child I've helped to bring into this world. I'm not going to lock him out of the house forever. Instead, I'll redouble my efforts to help my child get back on to the right track. Most importantly, I'll redouble my efforts to make him really want to get back on track for his own sake. So there are no contradictions between imprisoning the serious criminals who are a danger to all of us, while also promoting more resources for effective early intervention or effective intervention during prison terms, as well as dealing with some other social factors that evidence suggests may contribute to the development of future criminals.

The Chief Justice talked of Finland. There, the Parliament and media organisations decades ago agreed to treat the public with respect by conducting the terms of debate on crime as an informed quest for truth, justice and solutions — not some kind of game in sensationalism.

We can be like Finland, too.

In 2001, I headed a ministerial taskforce that directed the work that produced the report About Time, which the Chief Justice referred to. The evidence from New Zealand and other comparable jurisdictions was carefully weighed. The professionals who compiled the evidence for ministers found that earliest possible intervention works best and costs least. For example, intervention for a 5-year-old who is aggressive, defiant and rule-breaking is estimated to cost $5000 a case, with a success rate of 70 per cent. The same behaviour at 25 cost $20,000 a case, with a success rate of 20 per cent, at most. The report does not say that dangerous, aggressive offenders should not be imprisoned. But it did find that we imprison too readily.

In essence the evidence shows that the most effective strategies are:

Prevention, which involves the introduction of a planned and integrated range of barriers to progressing from disadvantaged childhood to serious adult offending.
Alternative sentencing for selected teenage offenders to provide for intensive rehabilitation, featuring job placement as a way of reducing progress to adult reoffending.
Rehabilitation of established adult offenders to improve their prospects of staying out prison.

Basically we need, urgently, to start joining the dots.

Prisons tell us many things about our social needs. Most of our prisoners, for example, come from the pool of 530,000 adult New Zealanders who are either totally or functionally illiterate. Our prisons also tell us much about the alcohol and illegal drug-abuse habits and trends in our country. Unpleasant truths, but ones we have to face and fix. We have to ask the hard questions and accept the challenges with courage.

In her New Year speech, the Chief Justice concluded: "Crime and its causes cannot adequately be addressed through penal policy alone."

Actually, there is absolutely nothing controversial about her speech. It is common sense.

Matt Robson
15 February 2005

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10011020

home / Previous viewpoint