Laura Norda strikes again

Written By: - Date published: 9:14 am, February 8th, 2024 - 78 comments
Categories: Christopher Luxon, crime, national, paul goldsmith, same old national - Tags:

I found yesterday’s post Cabinet press conference quite jarring.

Clearly National was still smarting about criticism about the way it was handling Treaty issues.

So it did what National Governments have done since time immemorial, it played the law and order card.

It did this by announcing that legal aid would no longer be available for the preparation of cultural reports provided on sentencing and that the Government would scrap Labour’s goal of reducing the prison muster by 30%.

Former National Prime Minister called prisons a moral and fiscal failure. It is a shame that this Government does not think the same.

The policies show the extent of National’s thinking. A cut here, a reversal there and no idea of how to improve things.

And the justifications are jarring. Expense is the alleged rational for not funding cultural reports. The cost of cultural reports last year was in the vicinity of $7.5 million or enough to pay for 50 extra prisoners to be incarcerated for a year. You can do the maths of the cost of imprisoning 3,000 people a year and this does not include the capital cost of building new prisons.

Goldsmith also announced that the Government would introduce changes to the Sentencing Act to cap possible discounts at 40%. This is American culture war attack “activist judges” quality populism.

And the problem is capping sentence discounts will increase the number of trials as defendants decide to roll the dice with a defended hearing rather than receive a very modest discount. And restorative justice, something that can be remarkably effective, will be adversely affected and less popular.

These reforms display a meanness of spirit and the pursuit of vengance rather than justice. And I guarantee they will be a moral and fiscal failure.

78 comments on “Laura Norda strikes again ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. tsmithfield 1
    8 February 2024 at 9:27 am

    I used to work in the High Court back in the day. In my experience, all sentencing was accompanied by a probation report which appeared to cover most of issues to do with the offender background etc that contributed to offending.

    If the cultural reports add little more to that, then, I would definitely question the rationale and expense of them, especially if it is essentially duplication of what already happens.

    A better option may be to ask those who write the probation reports to consult where necessary on cultural aspects to ensure the reports cover all the bases.

    • Macro 1.1
      8 February 2024 at 12:05 pm

      I worked as a Probation officer and as a Child Welfare Officer some years back now. A large part of the work involved the preparation of reports on the offender appearing before the court. However, they did not necessarily involve extensive cultural backgrounding. This cancellation is an abomination, and the height of stupidity. As Micky points out above, the cost of $7.5m is a tiny fraction of the cost of keeping 3000 extra people in custody when they might well be better served and their offending remediated in the community.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 1.2
      8 February 2024 at 12:23 pm

      I like your idea (@5) of "rap around support for [prisoners] when they return to the community" – works well in some wealthy countries that are closing prisons, and they also have the wherewithal to provide disadvantaged citizens with rap-around support to decrease the likelihood of criminal offending in the first place.

      The countries closing their prisons [25 Feb 2018]
      Sinclair says he wanted to take a look at countries with prison systems that "worked".

      "Ones where they had actually managed to reduce their prison populations in recent years and others where they have never had particularly high prison populations in the first place."

      He visited the Netherlands which has four times the population of New Zealand but the same prison population.

      "They've managed to get their prison population down, in fact they are closing prisons."

      He says Ireland has also managed to reduce its prison population.

      CATCH 22: The Unattainable Basic Necessities of Reintegration
      [2 Nov 2023]
      To break the cycle of reoffending, we must improve the support provided to individuals upon their release.

      I used to work in the High Court back in the day.

      If "back in the day" was more than 20 years ago, then much has changed since then.

      What are cultural sentencing reports and why does National want to scrap them? [13 Nov 2023]
      They are named after section 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. Section 27 allows an offender to ask the court to hear any people they choose to speak about their personal, family, whānau, community, and cultural background. It is an expansion of its predecessor, section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985.

      Māori face significant harm from axing govt funding of background reports [7 Feb 2024]
      “For decades, governments have created a justice system that ignores drivers of crime and instead puts people in prisons with inadequate rehabilitation support. The whole point of being able to request a background report is so a judge can better understand some of the reasons that may have led to an offence happening.

      “They can cover things like substance abuse, personality disorders, neurodivergence, learning difficulties, brain injuries, poverty, and trauma – including family violence and sexual violence.

      “Right now, 60% of Māori in prison have been a victim of family violence – that's 2,400 people. Reducing the prison population can go hand-in-hand with reducing reoffending through using more suitable community based sentences that have better rehabilitative outcome.

      Being ‘tough on crime’ is easy, but it doesn't work [21 Sept 2023]
      As someone who works in the criminal justice sector, the recent policy proposals by major political parties make we wonder whether politicians are more concerned about appearing hard on crime than they are with reducing criminal offending.

      This long-standing punitive approach to crime withstands the plethora of evidence and research that disproves its effectiveness for reducing re-offending. On the contrary, criminal justice experts and statisticians have consistently said harsher sentencing increases recidivism.

  2. Ad 2
    8 February 2024 at 9:59 am

    The National Party policy to scrap the target of lowering the number of prisoners in Corrections is to me the most reprehensible action.

    All honour to the previous government's Minister Little for working so hard to set people free into being useful Kiwis again.

    • adam 2.1
      8 February 2024 at 12:51 pm

      Well said Ad.

      Acknowledging our high recidivist rate, and then doing something about it – was a moment of courage, and in my opinion the high point of the last government.

      This action by the government reeks of childish machismo.

    • Patricia Bremner 2.2
      8 February 2024 at 1:46 pm

      Andrew Little must have achieved much that annoyed the right. His Fair Work Bill that has been scrapped, the work he and Kelvin Davis did to turn around our prison numbers and recidivism has all been scrapped or reversed, as part of Nact ideology and austerity drive. They have meanness in the marrow of their long bones.

    • tsmithfield 2.3
      8 February 2024 at 2:36 pm

      Ad, I am all for prison populations reducing. But for the right reasons.

      What I don't want is something akin to reducing hospital waiting lists by changing the criteria for hospital treatment rather than developing effective interventions to reduce the need to go to hospital in the first place.

      • Ad 2.3.1
        8 February 2024 at 5:27 pm

        What you are talking about is recidivism and reintegration.

        Plenty of longstanding trusts and charities have been doing just that for decades. As well as Corrections and MSD and NZDF and some of the major corporates.

        The really good thing about a super-low unemployment rate of 3-3.5% was that major construction companies were motivated to partner with Corrections to hire and train people straight out of jail. Which they did 2017-2024.

        Unemployment going over 4% is good for no-one. Including those in jail.

        • SPC 2.3.1.1
          8 February 2024 at 7:44 pm

          The link between a higher prison population and rising demand for migrant labour is obvious.

      • Craig H 2.3.2
        8 February 2024 at 7:38 pm

        Surely the difference in effects between a 3 year sentence or a 5 year sentence is negligible in terms of reducing recividism and total amount of crime. One just costs more than the other.

        Criminals don't get released from prison and commit crime undetected at a regular frequency, they get released from prison and if they commit more crime, it's a sudden burst of activity before the police catch up with them. A longer sentence doesn't stop that or reduce the incidence of it over a criminal's lifetime. Very long sentences or the death penalty (which I abhor) might have an impact on that, but I don't think either of those would sit right with the public other than for the most serious offences.

  3. Mike the Lefty 3
    8 February 2024 at 10:02 am

    On the TV news at six item on this yesterday it was hinted that this policy is being emphasised now because the government is looking very weak following the storm of protests that erupted over Waitangi weekend.

    Want to get something out there that makes the redneck faithful feel good about themselves and simultaneously pay back Maori for the all the insults they inflicted on them over the last few days.

    You know, I bet if it were non-Maori filling up most of the prison space there wouldn't be quite the same urgency by the NACTZ.

    Filling up prisons and building new ones will not prevent crime. Crime is prevented by having a sufficiently large well-equipped, well organized police force, and National's confusion about what plans they have for police numbers don't suggest that they have any plan to make it so.

    Prisons have a poor record for rehabilitation, they have a good record for being gang mustering grounds for new recruits.

    Typical of the NACTZ to revert to failed Victorian England policies.

    • Kay 3.1
      8 February 2024 at 10:17 am

      Crime is also prevented by secure affordable housing, not being in dire poverty, not going hungry, and basically having some hope for the future. Return someone from jail back to that same environment and what do they think will happen?

      Being incarcerated also creates institutionalisation, and the inability to function in the world again, thus it's easier to go back.

  4. Peter 4
    8 February 2024 at 10:25 am

    An old patron of the arts can spend years and hundreds thousands (or more?) furnishing cultural reports and whatever else proving he's a good bloke with prospects and deserves the rub of the green.

    Some 18 year old from Mangere?

    The Goldsmith announcement is just another dash from the 'lock-em up throw away the key' bible.

    • Mike the Lefty 4.1
      8 February 2024 at 3:12 pm

      Goldsmith is one of those dreary dull National journeymen with a long and totally undistinguished career in parliament hoping to do something that will make people notice that he has been there.

  5. tsmithfield 5
    8 February 2024 at 10:57 am

    I actually think we need a whole new approach to prisons.

    I think the focus needs to either be on public safety or rehabilitation. So, people who come out of prison should be a lot better than they went in.

    The first thing I would do away with is the concept of varying sentence lenghts.

    People who are so bad they are never likely to reform, and likely to be a continuing menance to the community should basically be locked away forever, unless there is some dramatic change in their nature that justifies the second step of my idea.

    The second point is that I think other prisoners should be sent to a facility where the whole focus is on rehabilitation. That is, dealing with factors that contribute to their behaviour. For instance, dealing with drug addiction, critical education gaps, trade skills, counselling etc. Plus, rap around support for when they return to the community. That would include mentoring support in the community, ongoing counselling, and job opportunities.

    When prisoners have reached an adequate standard in this program, they can be released back into the community.

    There would be a degree of transfer between both types of prison. So, people who play up in the softer prison can be sent back to the harder level. And those who show motivation at the harder level can be transferred to the softer level.

    I think this approach would ensure that there is sufficient time to actually correct issues in people's lives, rather than arbitrary release before issues have been sorted.

    • Nic the NZer 5.1
      8 February 2024 at 11:33 am

      You just wanted to put some thoughts up to demonstrate how show how bonkers peoples ideas for prison reform could get?

      • tsmithfield 5.1.1
        8 February 2024 at 11:39 am

        So, rather than just ridiculing my idea, how about some comments to show why my idea wouldn't work, or be superior to what we currently have.

        Imprisoning people the way we do now obviously doesn't work. But catch and release doesn't seem to work either. So, what is it you don't like about the model I have proposed.

        • Res Publica 5.1.1.1
          8 February 2024 at 12:12 pm

          People who are so bad they are never likely to reform, and likely to be a continuing menance to the community should basically be locked away forever, unless there is some dramatic change in their nature that justifies the second step of my idea.

          And who decides which type of criminal is which?

          I think the main flaws with your idea are that there's no objective way to judge or measure human nature. It will all be up to the interpretation of lawyers, judges, and juries.

          An, of course, any justice system involves human beings is going to be fallible.

          You will inevitably end up with "good" criminals being lumped in with the "bad" ones due do having a bad lawyer, or bad luck with a jury. Or "bad" criminals being able to wriggle into the easier prison by hiring an expensive enough lawyer.

          So basically the same problem as exists with the current system.

          TLDR; Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

          • mac1 5.1.1.1.1
            8 February 2024 at 12:28 pm

            "Quis iūdicat ipsos iūdices?"

            I think here the national government is trying to influence the judges' decisions by altering the input for their consideration and by altering the judge's ability to discount sentences. It is also playing diversionary politics by feeding the public lion some easy meat at the games.

            They, and the public who agree with their moves here, have already judged the judges.

            • Res Publica 5.1.1.1.1.1
              8 February 2024 at 12:58 pm

              Oh, I totally agree! The government's definitely trying to put its thumb on the scales to please the redneck, "sensible" sentencing mob.

              But it's also totally legit: from a constitutional perspective, judicial independence has always existed alongside, and been limited by the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty.

          • tsmithfield 5.1.1.1.2
            8 February 2024 at 1:26 pm

            I think the main flaws with your idea are that there's no objective way to judge or measure human nature. It will all be up to the interpretation of lawyers, judges, and juries.

            You have just described almost any justice system.

            You will inevitably end up with "good" criminals being lumped in with the "bad" ones due do having a bad lawyer, or bad luck with a jury.

            But I think we can all think of examples that would easily meet the criteria: Brendon Tarrant for example. And, our parole system does something similar to what I have suggested now when it comes to considering whether serious criminals are safe to release into the community on parole. So, my idea is not without precedent.

            But, I did cover that point when I said:

            There would be a degree of transfer between both types of prison. So, people who play up in the softer prison can be sent back to the harder level. And those who show motivation at the harder level can be transferred to the softer level.

            I am not claiming what I have suggested would be perfect. I just think it would be a lot better than what we have now.

            • Incognito 5.1.1.1.2.1
              8 February 2024 at 4:39 pm

              Did you try to invent the NZ version of the Godwin rule to score a point?

              FYI, four psychiatric and psychological reports were prepared for the court case of the worst offender in NZ history who was found guilty of 51 charges of murder, 40 charges of attempted murder, and a charge of committing a terrorist act.

              • tsmithfield …
                8 February 2024 at 7:48 pm

                The type of offenders I am talking about are often on long non-parole sentences anyway. So, not a lot would change in that respect except the criteria would widen a bit.

                I am not saying that those in the high security prison can't move to the lower security rehabilition prison. It would be like it is now in many ways. They would need to convince a parole board they are suitable for this transition.

                • Incognito …
                  8 February 2024 at 8:58 pm

                  Why did you argue from the extreme case then?

                  You make some vague generalisations as if all prisoners serving the same prison term are somehow similar in their resistance or openness to rehabilitation aka one size fits all. This, BTW, is one of the same criticisms put up against removing voting rights of prisoners who serve a sentence of three years or longer.

                  To paraphrase and parody Rumsfeld, there are good good people, bad good people, good bad people, and bad bad people, and we’ll never be able to tell without reasonable doubt who’s what.

                  • tsmithfield …
                    8 February 2024 at 10:29 pm

                    But people are paid for making those sorts of distinctions now. So, what I am proposing isn't all that much different to the status quo in many ways in that respect.

                    If what I proposed was a non-porus bifurcation between the two groups, then you would have a stronger point. But I made it clear that that isn't what I was proposing. There would need to be fluidity to allow for those who may have been misclassified, or who show motivation to change to be moved to the rehabilitation group, and vice-versa.

                    • Incognito …
                      9 February 2024 at 8:26 am

                      Properly resource the Judiciary and let them do their job without eroding their integrity and independence by removing their sound judgment and discretionary tools.

                      But that’s not what you’re saying at all; it sounded more and more like some hallucination from an AI bot.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      9 February 2024 at 8:56 am

                      "a non-porus bifurcation"

                      Great wordsmithing, tsmithfield!

                    • tsmithfield …
                      9 February 2024 at 9:54 am

                      But that’s not what you’re saying at all; it sounded more and more like some hallucination from an AI bot.

                      What I am really wanting to see is conditions where those who are released from prison come out better than when they went in. I am sure most of us would agree that the current system is very poor at achieving that outcome.

                      So, the key things I am wanting to see with my idea is an environment in prison where those who are motivated to improve their lives are not distracted by those who have no interest in doing that.

                      And, I would like to see that those who are motivated to change, have sufficient time and support to do so.

                      So, any model that meets those objectives I would probably be happy with.

                      So, for that group, I don't really see prison as punishment. But rather, an opportunity for the intensive input they need.

                      The downfall with this type of intervention is that when people return to the community, they often quickly fall back into their old ways.

                      That is where effective community support on the outside is vital to ensure that changes stick.

            • Res Publica 5.1.1.1.2.2
              8 February 2024 at 5:19 pm

              I am not claiming what I have suggested would be perfect. I just think it would be a lot better than what we have now.

              You would have to try incredibly hard to do worse. And, as I pointed out to Nic earlier, you've had least had the courage to articulate an idea and engage with a debate about it. Which is one better than I've done.

              My 2 cents worth is that the need for cultural (and other) reports are symptomatic of the law being woefully inadequate to the task of ensuring just and proportionate sentencing. Especially in the light of pressure from the (in)sensible sentencing crowd and their ilk.

              It'd be much more sensible to fix the root inequities in the justice system rather than cover it up with a fig leaf of impact reports after the fact.

              • tsmithfield …
                8 February 2024 at 7:52 pm

                Under the model I am proposing, prisoners who are most motivated to change and take advantage of all the supports offered would get out first. Hence, the prisoners would have a strong motivation to make changes, rather than just enduring their lag.

                Notice, I have just used public safety and rehabilitation as reasons for imprisonment, not punishment.

                I think it is important that people spend enough time in the rehabilitation side of the system to make changes that last. Hence, focussing on the time needed for this to take effect rather than arbitrary sentences.

        • Nic the NZer 5.1.1.2
          8 February 2024 at 12:29 pm

          Oops, my mistake. I mean I had assumed your suggestion of splitting criminals into a good kind and a bad kind was so obviously flawed you could not possibly have been serious. I therefore assigned your idea to the bad category where it can remain indefinitely for the protection of society. But if your serious then do carry on with your proposal and we will all have a good laugh when some political party says, running justice like a baseball game is one thing, but your proposal is completely bonkers.

          • Res Publica 5.1.1.2.1
            8 February 2024 at 1:01 pm

            I'd be intrigued to see your obviously brilliant, well researched, and comprehensive plans for prison reform Nic.

            At least the OP has been willing to articulate something other than scorn and lazy sarcasm.

            So put up, or shut up.

            • Nic the NZer 5.1.1.2.1.1
              8 February 2024 at 1:20 pm

              In my extensive research, reject every judicial reform proposal which has ever been proposed by the ACT party at least since John Banks was leader of the party. This simple proposal has, as far as research goes, a 100% track record of weeding out reforms which have been found later to undermine the NZ justice system.

              However, as you pointed out yourself, tsmithfields proposals (if they mean anything) would not succeed and assume you can make prima facia judgements of the future of people convicted.

              • Res Publica …
                8 February 2024 at 5:05 pm

                In my extensive research, reject every judicial reform proposal which has ever been proposed by the ACT party at least since John Banks was leader of the party

                OK, that we can definitely agree on…

                I also happen to think that tmsithfield's proposition is unworkable and untenable. But we should at least give them the courtesy of engaging with it on its merits.

    • Muttonbird 5.2
      8 February 2024 at 3:07 pm

      It's curious the way you suggest all manner of expensive interventions. An entire new layer of corrections infrastructure in the form new promotion/relegation facility complete with addiction services, counselling, education, and skills training, plus wrap around services after that.

      Yet you balk at the very first intervention, a cultural report.

      Could it be your opposition is to the word cultural?

      • tsmithfield 5.2.1
        8 February 2024 at 4:23 pm

        As I said earlier, probation reports already cover a lot of this, and could be augmented if the detail is sufficient in respect to culture.

        I just don't see the need for a duplication.

        • Macro 5.2.1.1
          8 February 2024 at 5:06 pm

          and could be augmented if the detail is sufficient in respect to culture.

          Why do you think cultural reports were considered necessary in the first place? Could it possibly be that firstly, probation officers are inundated with work, secondly, the need to carry out an extensive background checks on every individual would require additional time and resources, and thirdly, someone with the necessary skills to do a fulsome cultural report is not necessarily the skills of a Probation Officer.

          Take for example a chap I know well. R came to our attention on Sunday evenings at our Sunday evening open kitchens. Open to anyone who wishes to drop in and have a chat and some hot food. R was shy and didn't engage in conversation with anyone – but he was obviously hungry. I learnt from others that he was recently released from prison, and it was obvious he was traumatised. He was sleeping rough and took to sleeping at the back of the church. Accomodation through WINZ wasn't really an option. He couldn't be around others – even others like himself. R made himself useful cleaning up the grounds around the buildings – particularly after a Sat evening when the patrons from the pub across the road would drop their empty cans and bottles etc on the church grounds. As a sort of casual verger it was decided that the best solution for R was for him to have his own insulated hut with a good bed, and a place for some garden tools to care for a garden. He had worked in the garden at the prison and that had been his happy time.

          R stayed in the little shed for 3 years over the lockdown and beyond. His mum (who had been on the streets when he was born) lived close by, and they were able to establish a relationship, which had not been possible before.

          R has now moved on to better things. Prison was a traumatic and devastating experience for him. If only some sort of intervention had been available to him before that, maybe his life, and those around him, would have been far more enriched.

    • Craig H 5.3
      8 February 2024 at 7:45 pm

      I think a properly funded rehabilitative approach is essential as is proper support at release. The public don't like it because it goes against their sense of retribution as the most important aspect of criminal sentencing, but that's counterproductive to reduction of offending over time.

      I'm not a fan of removing all proportionality from sentencing – indefinite sentences should remain reserved for the most serious offending, not handed out liberally. Longer sentences with more liberal parole would be a potential compromise, although no doubt that would be attacked as soft on crime as parole often is.

    • SPC 5.4
      8 February 2024 at 7:56 pm

      Tier 1 Incoming – counselling and education gaps.

      Long term stays – the issue is activity roles in the system (kitchen, gardening, maintenance, library etc).

      Tier 2 Outgoing – trade skills and work release (earn money for rental bonds).

      Tier 3A – complete sentence as bracelet home work release, or in community housing (while looking for accommodation)

      Tier 3B – those into community housing on release to receive help with trade skills, finding work (iwi related maybe).

  6. Descendant Of Smith 6
    8 February 2024 at 11:05 am

    "rap around support"

    Music soothes the savage beast. Potential export earning as well.

    • Robert Guyton 6.1
      8 February 2024 at 11:36 am

      Music may soothe the savage beast, but is best known for soothing the savage breast 🙂

      • Descendant Of Smith 6.1.1
        10 February 2024 at 12:07 am

        I'd argue the other way.

        best and colloquially known for "soothing the savage beast", less known by far that the original phrase was "soothing the savage breast"

        • Robert Guyton 6.1.1.1
          10 February 2024 at 8:55 am

          You could be right, DoS and I didn't mean to criticise you at all. I do think though, because I've thought about this, that "breast" is the true meaning 🙂 The reason I think that is because it makes more sense and while it seems to be true that milking cows are soothed by some music, they are rarely described as savage, and to the best of my knowledge, beasts that can be; tigers, honey bears, wolverines etc. aren't on record anywhere showing a de-escalation of their anger in response to music.

          Otoh, the breasts, or rather, hearts, of savage humans, are reached and affected by music, especially Baroque, according to research and experience, and such music is regularly used in situations where calming is required; institutions for the mentally ill, for example.

          I know I'm doubling-down, making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but when a question comes down to seeking help from Google and the mess of potage that can throw up, I try to plumb the depths (or shallows) of my brain and see what's lurking there 🙂 So, breast, for me!

          • Descendant Of Smith 6.1.1.1.1
            10 February 2024 at 2:18 pm

            Didn't take it personally, was aware of both and in fact when I originally responded and tossed up which version to use I erred on the side of common usage.

            I'm just happy that others take a similar interest in English usage.

            On the other hand – people who say "without further adieu" instead of ado drive me batty.

  7. Incognito 7
    8 February 2024 at 12:23 pm

    The RW Law & Order agenda, or weapon rather, never is about Justice & Fairness. It is RW ideology trumping morality & ethics.

    The whole Justice Cluster (Crown Law Office, Department of Corrections, Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police, Serious Fraud Office) has been asked to find savings of 6.5%.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/507659/the-public-service-agencies-asked-to-cut-spending

    It’s obvious who will bear the brunt of this and the Coalition Government knows it too and couldn’t care less. Arguably, it is deliberate and pre-determined. This should be seen together with their other attacks on the integrity and independence of the NZ Judiciary. A Randian bunch of Neo-Authoritarians is running amok in the Beehive.

  8. Michael who failed Civics 8
    8 February 2024 at 1:27 pm

    Interesting to see Goldsmith deride s27 reports as a "cottage industry". It pales into insignificance compared to the medicolegal assessment industry that began to flourish under the Bolger-Shipley government and is responsible for brutal disentitlement of thousands of ACC claimants and sickness/invalid beneficiaries. No changes there of course.

    • aj 8.1
      8 February 2024 at 1:39 pm

      "cottage industry"

      'Trams' instead of 'Light rail'

      All all about deriding the process. 3 Waters = 'stealing the assets'

      etc

  9. newsense 9
    8 February 2024 at 3:46 pm

    Should be asking them too, hammering them to rule out private prisons and PP in the justice system, because of the shareholder value issue.

    Government for: tobacco companies, greedy landlords, racists and private prisons.

    This is an evil government.

  10. newsense 10
    8 February 2024 at 3:56 pm

    Not sure if that’s gone weird in the editing above:

    Should be asking them too, hammering them to rule out private prisons and PP in the justice system, because of the shareholder value issue.

    Government for: tobacco companies, greedy landlords, racists and private prisons.

    This is an evil government.

    We should be asking them questions about the kind of government wants to cut childcare, social workers, welfare, public transport and housing and to only increase the prison population. If they aren’t increasing the workforce with that they are surely committing any number of actionable human rights abuses?

  11. Wei 11
    8 February 2024 at 5:07 pm

    The priority of any criminal justice system must surely be public safety above and beyond all else. If the rehabilitation of the prisoner can be achieved at the same time, that's a good thing, but it should not be the priority.

    Now some will say if you rehabilitate the prisoner, you will get less crime. However I think a strong deterrence will likely reduce future crime and lessen the likelihood of people getting in trouble and requiring 'rehabilitation' in the first place.

    The productive citizenry pays taxes, and they expect their women and children to walk the streets safely. I've just come back from Brisbane, and their city centre with 24-hour public swimming pools and little if any aggro is vastly different from what we have in Queen St Auckland. It's a national disgrace.

    In the end the major human rights issue in this country is law and order or its lack thereof.

    • Incognito 11.1
      8 February 2024 at 5:39 pm

      The productive citizenry pays taxes, and they expect their women and children to walk the streets safely.

      Thanks for this gem of RW stereotyping. Those law-abiding citizens will take their tax cuts to their lovely warm & dry homes with white picket fences and a schnoodle, after taking their well-behaved and well-adjusted children to the movies topped with a nice ice-cream.

      BTW, removing prisoner voting rights is a breach of their human rights and it’s got nothing to do with public safety. It’s a National disgrace.

      You can jump in the lake (24/7)!

      • Robert Guyton 11.1.1
        8 February 2024 at 6:56 pm

        I thought Wei's stereotyping began with "productive citizenry" being male, defined as they are, by having a wife.

      • Wei 11.1.2
        8 February 2024 at 10:07 pm

        What on earth has 'right wing' got to do with it? Left wing does not mean soft on crime.

        As for those middle class people whom you seem to detest, if they all disappeared we would have no people to run the hospitals, the schools, build infrastructure, etc. In other words disappear the productive citizenry and the country turns into a shithole.

        Whereas if the criminally inclined disappeared, we would lose nothing as a society, indeed society would be improved.

        • Incognito 11.1.2.1
          9 February 2024 at 8:21 am

          Your reading comprehension and cognitive ability for reasoned argument have left you with pathetic RW stereotypes, slogans, and absolutisms.

          You haven’t dealt with the Mod note for you and your time here is running out fast.

          • tsmithfield 11.1.2.1.1
            9 February 2024 at 9:45 am

            Here is a Wiki link for you on that one. From the article:

            Crime rates in Singapore are some of the lowest in the world, with petty crimes such as pickpocketing and street theft rarely occurring, and violent crime being extremely rare.[1] Penalties for drug offences such as trafficking in Singapore are severe, and include the death penalty.[2]

            So, certainly in Singapore, anyway, there appears to be an association between severe punishments and low crime rates.

            Of course, correlation is not causation, and the two factors (severe punishment and low crime rates) may be coincidental. Or perhaps there is already a strong social attitude against crime which supports government laws to punish crime when it does occur.

    • SPC 11.2
      8 February 2024 at 6:23 pm

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_incarceration_rate

      https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country

      Our rate of incarceration is higher than China, but our crime rate is lower.

      But given we do not make human rights a trade concern, no mind.

    • Craig H 11.3
      8 February 2024 at 7:48 pm

      Longer sentences don't reduce crime so don't improve public safety, just the perception of it.

    • Michael P 11.4
      9 February 2024 at 10:43 pm

      Rehabilitation has to be the priority. Remember, the vast majority of those currently in prison have to be released at some stage.

  12. Ad 12
    8 February 2024 at 5:23 pm

    We are a nasty, punitive little country ranking just below the United States in jailed-per-capita.

    https://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector-policy/key-initiatives/key-initiatives-archive/hapaitia-te-oranga-tangata/#:~:text=Around%2056.5%25%20of%20people%20with,years%20following%20release%20from%20prison.

    We've just had the most dramatic fall in prison numbers in multiple decades. We can show we can really change things for good.

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/04-10-2022/our-prisons-are-breeding-grounds-for-crime-what-needs-to-change

    If Luxon really wants a more productive society requiring lower state subsidy per person, then he needs to get people out of being subsidised $120,000 per year in jail, and back out living useful lives within New Zealand. Equal Justice have done thinking for him.

    https://www.equaljusticeproject.co.nz/articles/a-critical-analysis-of-the-reintegration-of-prisoners-back-into-aotearoa-new-zealand-society2021

  13. SPC 13
    8 February 2024 at 7:02 pm

    If the purpose is to reduce crime

    1.decriminalise possession of marijuana, E etc

    2.allow low THC marijuana to be sold

    3.require Insurance companies to establish a property recovery company – and enable that group to use GPS to track stolen property and recover it (from the thief or person who bought the stolen goods). This would develop research into ways to tag property to prevent theft (from the personal to the building site).

    4.reduce the number of outlets with high value (smokes because of tax) on the property.

    5.reduce the number of liquor and gambling outlets in poor neighbourhoods

    6.intervene in the debt spiral to prevent people becoming desperate – rather than people to profit from this.

    7.mitigate the final phase of that dilemma – unaffordable rent but the need for an address and phone for ID – for Income Support or bank account (allow agents to act for these people).

    Having an unequal society and making crime too easy is simply stupid. It is like a form of entrapment. It is like saying the poor have children who are born bad or the problem is welfare.

    When there is a government that is determined to make landlords richer and have fewer owning property, there is a class war. And crime and punishment is just one front of that war.

    • Wei 13.1
      8 February 2024 at 9:56 pm

      My parents were dirt poor and yet they did not resort to alcoholism or gambling. In the end people are responsible for their own actions, particularly in regard to alcohol and smoking.

      I have just returned from a trip to mainland China where alcohol is sold like water, in convenience stores, vending machines, supermarkets, at any small eatery (it's great to have a beer with spicy food). Hard liquor even can be purchased off the streets. Age restrictions are nominal and rarely enforced. Yet there are few social problems arising from such a lax policy.

      The more something is made verboten the more issues you will have it. In that sense legalising cannabis could be a good thing. But if people use it as an excuse to commit crime, then crack down ruthlessly on the crime. Freedom can and must co-exist with harsh punishments.

      • Robert Guyton 13.1.1
        9 February 2024 at 9:03 am

        "crack down ruthlessly on the crime"

        Show no pity, no matter what the circumstances.

        Heart o' gold, you!

      • Drowsy M. Kram 13.1.2
        9 February 2024 at 10:50 am

        I have just returned from a trip to mainland China where alcohol is sold like water… Yet there are few social problems arising from such a lax policy.

        Apparent alcohol-related social problems may be negligible, but health problems arising from using addictive substances are statistically unavoidable – buyer beware.

        Alcohol consumption and risks of more than 200 diseases in Chinese men [8 June 2023]
        Overall, the present study demonstrated substantial hazards of alcohol consumption with a wide range of disease outcomes among Chinese men. The findings reinforce the need to lower population mean levels of alcohol consumption as a public health priority in China.

        It's great that the freedom (particularly the freedom of men) to purchase alcohol has increased in China – hope it doesn't negatively impact transplantation procedures.

        "A drop received in need will be repaid with a whole river." Gānbēi smiley

        • Wei 13.1.2.1
          9 February 2024 at 12:18 pm

          Alcohol, like smoking has always been a health problem and always will be. That's nothing new. The question is whether other people's individual choices affect others.

          [Silly question.

          Anyway, you continue ignoring moderation. Therefore, take a month off for ongoing diversions and wasting Moderator time. When you come back you’ll go straight into Pre-Moderation again because you cannot be trusted and need supervision here – Incognito]

  14. Wei 14
    9 February 2024 at 12:24 pm

    Evidence that harsh penalties work:

    Central Narcotics Bureau of Singapore | Drug Report (cnb.gov.sg)

    That does not mean I support the death penalty, not because it is not a deterrent, but because I would not want to like in a society that hangs people any more than one that chops the heads off people.

    However, the argument that death, or long periods of imprisonment do not have a deterrent effect fly in the face of the reality of human nature.

    However, agree an overemphasis on deterrence only can end up with the situation where certain members of society are offered up as some form of human sacrifice for the apparent well-being of the whole – that would of course be immoral. Even one person suffering unjustly for the ‘good’ of the whole of society is unacceptable.

    However, harshness that rehabilitates is something that we should consider. Not molly coddling crims, but rather putting through challenging circumstances where they have a chance of coming out the other end as productive citizens. Rehabilitation can go hand in hand with deterrence.

    • Incognito 14.1
      9 February 2024 at 7:06 pm

      I assume this was meant to be in response to my comment @ 13.1.1. If so, I called out your commenting behaviour and had no intention of asking for info on Singapore as such.

      In any case, you have diverted again from the OP, which you started @ 11, and your RW ‘mission creep’ is blatant and deliberate.

      A quick & dirty Google search on “prison term deterrence research” suggests that you have cherry-picked Singapore to confirm your belief. It appears that reality is more complex and your claim is not necessarily backed by the large body of research on this topic.

      It’s a little moot anyway, as the OP didn’t discuss plans by the Coalition Government to increase prison sentences.

      I suggest you do some research while your serving your sentence – you may actually learn something that might change your mind.

  15. cathyo 15
    12 February 2024 at 12:57 pm

    "And the justifications are jarring. Expense is the alleged rational for not funding cultural reports. "

    Expense is a good rationale for capital punishment