Blameless Babes
There has been quite a lot of media and blogosphere reaction to Chief Justice Sian Elias’ speech, most of it in reaction to her final comment about considering executive amnesty for certain criminals, in order to reduce prison numbers. ZenTiger at NZ Conservative has been particularly vociferous in condemning the remarks. Having now taken the time to read through her actual speech [PDF] (well worth the read, by the way), it is not clear from her closing remarks whether she is advocating a simple release (presumably of prisoners with minor convictions) or a conversion of their sentences to non-custodial ones. Although I agree with ZenTiger that this suggestion flies in the face of the retributive aspect of justice, I did think that Elias’ remarks were worthy of a less dismissive attitude than that displayed by Simon Power. “Butt out” is not really something you want to say to your Chief Justice when she is speaking about law, no matter how much you disagree with her liberal viewpoint.
There is much to like in Elias’ speech. Her remarks on the horrendous underfunding of the probation system and the anomalous treatment of the mentally ill are both spot on. A properly run probation system is one of the few things shown to reduce reoffending. Currently, the probation officer is being used as a watchdog, rather than as an aid to help offenders reorder their lives. Part of the reason why Prison Fellowship have such good success with rehabilitation is because they spend a good deal of one-to-one time with newly-released prisoners. The same could be achieved with a revamped probation system.
Treating mental illness in a criminal manner is not only fruitless, but actually exacerbates the problem. People with borderline personality disorders usually spend their time in prison learning new ways to offend. This becomes their way of coping with their relationship problems, a new way of pushing people away; so they don’t have to cope with the complexities of social interactions. In most countries, Borderline Personality Disorder is registered as a mental illness. In New Zealand it is not. The net result is that our prisons are full of these people, all of whom need treatment, usually for substance abuse as well as their personality disorder.
Elias’ also touches on substance abuse in prison populations. In my opinion, this is, by far and away, the greatest failing of corrections. Here you have a restrained population that should be easy to detoxify, and easy to be teach skills for coping with their addiction, when returned to the community. Instead, prisons appear to be a breeding ground for further addiction and reinforcement of addictive behavior.
Contra Celsum remarks that drug use in prison is not dealt with in the same manner that the activity is dealt with in the community – by court action and extension of sentencing. I think it needs to go much further than that. Nothing less than an absolute zero tolerance policy will do. People found couriering drugs into prison should immediately be arrested and charged with trafficking; not possession, not a lesser charge, but straight drug dealing. Prisoners found with drugs should be subject to immediate blood tests and positive results should get you a month in solitary confinement, while you dry out. Random blood tests should be routine. All infringements should be met with immediate loss of privileges and, if necessary, solitary confinement. Hand-wringing about human rights here is counter-productive. Drug addiction is a scourge on society and a blight upon the lives of these men and women. Nothing less than strong action will remove it. Addicts treated with consideration and leniency get worse, not better. Prisoners should not be abused, but neither should they be given any sort of lee-way.
Without a comprehensive anti-drug program, all other forms of rehabilitation will be a waste of time.
Prison, of course, is about more than rehabilitation, it is also about retribution (the consequences of criminality) and protection of society. People do not like to talk about the former (although Elias, to her credit, does not shy from it). Yet the punishment of crime is a basic part of our society. Restorative justice is always preferable to punitive justice, but there are many, many crimes that are just not restorable. It could be argued that even simple theft cannot be fully restorative, due to the mental anguish caused to the victim. It follows that retribution is a perfectly valid reason for incarceration of criminals. Those who argue that prison sentences “do not work” usually overlook this simple aspect of justice.
Elias herself quotes the usual liberal line that “research” shows that prisoners with longer prison sentences are more likely to reoffend, while those with community based sentences are less likely. This is usually provided as justification for shorter sentences, ignoring the need for retributive justice. The only trouble with this research is that I have yet to see someone manage to eliminate the obvious selection bias. Who is given the longest sentences? That’s right – hardened criminals. The very ones most likely to reoffend when they are released. Which is an excellent reason for giving them longer sentences, not shorter ones, in accordance with the third imperative of justice, the protection of society.
The title of Elias’ speech, and this post, is Blameless Babes, and is taken from a question voiced by Shirley Smith, New Zealand’s first woman law lecturer, whose memorial lecture Elias was giving.
“What turns “blameless babes” (as all criminals once were) into the stuff of nightmares?”
It is an excellent question. Regardless of whatever style of justice we prefer – Restorative, Rehabilitative, Retributive – it is this question that must be answered if New Zealand is to empty its prisons. It does not make any difference to the level of violence in our society whether we choose to reform our criminals or lock them away forever, because there are always new ones growing up, ready to take their place. The only way we are going to lower the levels of crime in New Zealand is by tackling its causes head-on. Causes that are already well-recognised. Child abuse, fatherless families, drug abuse and addiction and poor education. These are the root causes of crime in this country. These are the things we must tackle if we want to stop building prisons.
Everything else is just ambulance-at-the-bottom-of-the-cliff stuff and political posturing.
Related posts:
- Out of the Mouths of Babes… Readers of this blog will appreciate that I am fascinated by...
- Word of the Day : Dikephobia Today the HOS asks the question “Are you losing faith...
- Overcorrection Tucked away in the news yesterday was this story of...
- Pointless Parole In what must be the most pointless act of leniency...
- Crime Statistics I find the great profusion and misuse of crime statistics...
Jul 18 09 10:10 pm
There were good points in the entire speech, but I decided not to let that stop me strongly rejecting her suggestion of amnesty for prisoners for the sole reason the prisons are full.
She couches the idea with a few escape clauses, as if unpalatable ideas are more easily swallowed when couched in soft, non-confrontational terms.
Such solutions will not please many. And I am not well placed to assess whether they are feasible.
But the alternatives and the costs of overcrowding need to be weighed.
I wonder if she had suggested we empty the prisons by putting a bullet in the brains of repeat offenders, or people in for 5 years or more, “because alternatives need to be weighed”, if the MSM would be defending her idea as simply one designed to provoke discussion?
Would such an outrageous suggestion be befitting of the Chief Justice?
I am left wondering that if there was a court case previously where a person was left off for beating a child (using the supposedly believable idea that beating a child to near death is “reasonable force”) it was not that there was a loophole in the law, it was that the judge felt the prisons were too full….
.-= ZenTiger´s last blog ..Curses – Al Gore Might Be Right =-.
Jul 18 09 10:23 pm
The reasons being … Child abuse, fatherless families, drug abuse and addiction and poor education. These are the root causes of crime in this country. These are the things we must tackle if we want to stop building prisons.
And paradoxically, I suggest not enforcing the laws as they stand are another reason. The current feeling seems to be shying away from prison sentencing etc, and yet there were two stories in the papers today where the people in question had racked up over 100 and 140 convictions, 40 whilst out on bail. Letting them out on bail didn’t seem to work, did it. One person was going to jail after many offenses for finally crossing the line – threatening a judge and the judge’s family.
And yet Housing NZ cannot evict gang members who threaten the neighbours. The neighbours move away and the judge never gets to say anything compassionate about those victims, they don’t cross her radar.
And finally, my actual point – apparently, we have cases of prison rape, but not one prosecution for it. What’s going on? If we want to fix the system, start protecting those that have been hurt. If you don’t want people coming out of prison worse for it, punish those in there that commit more crimes. There is NOTHING of such issues in her speech.
.-= ZenTiger´s last blog ..Curses – Al Gore Might Be Right =-.
Jul 18 09 10:33 pm
ZT:
Yes, I agree that if she had suggested bringing back hanging as a way to reduce prison numbers, the MSM would be boiling her in oil around about now. On the other hand, Power was just a little too precipitate in condemning her for her closing remarks, without at least suggesting that there were valid points in other parts of her speech. He has made it difficult for himself to take on board the more useful suggestions around probation and mental illness. This is the problem with politicians engaging in knee-jerk reactions – sometimes you throw away the baby with the bathwater.
FWIW, I entirely agreed with your post.
Jul 18 09 10:46 pm
Thanks MacDoctor. I’m glad the three strikes law didn’t get in – that ultimately seemed flawed (indeed, every time I look into the exact legislation text of issues I care about, I’ve been disappointed at its quality) and I think we do need to get serious about prison reform – although I doubt we need to do anything radical, we just need to carry through with the principles we have already agreed to. For example, I completely agree on your zero tolerance drug approach for drugs behind bars. Acting on this would only be following the law in any event. given the low number of prosecutions, and yet the high incidence of use reported, there does seem to be a disconnect. Fix that, other things will fall into place.
And surely, for non-violent offenders, we can have a different kind of prison than the expensive, high security lock-ups required for violent offenders? Ones modeled after a community village rather than a barbed wire Stalag. Don’t we?
.-= ZenTiger´s last blog ..Curses – Al Gore Might Be Right =-.
Yes. My concerns about the three strikes legislation revolved entirely around the mechanics of it, rather than the principle. There was just too many possibilities of travesties of justice being committed.
Jul 18 09 10:59 pm
ZT: And paradoxically, I suggest not enforcing the laws as they stand are another reason.
I don’t think there is anything paradoxical about it. There is a clear inverse relationship between levels of crime and levels of law enforcement. In fact, the prospect of being caught is a more powerful deterrent than the prospect of a long jail sentence.
Not that tougher sentences don’t have any effect. Although the left like to suggest that prison doesn’t work, Steven Levitt, of Freakonomics fame has shown that, provided there is a reasonable prospect of being caught, longer sentences do reduce the crime rate.
I agree with you that corrections should be getting tough on prison rapes (and assaults for that matter) – Zero tolerance can be applied across the board.
Jul 19 09 3:11 pm
There is much to like in Elias’ speech.
Only if it’s printed on soft but strong paper and hung on a nail beside the dunny.
Child abuse, fatherless families, drug abuse and addiction and poor education. These are the root causes of crime in this country.
With all due respect you have made the same error as Elias, i.e. you have confused coincidence and causality. As I say in my post, the root cause of crime is those parents who instill in their children a criminal world view.
http://kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com/2009/07/19/sian-elias-and-the-blameless-babes-speech/
.-= Kiwi Polemicist´s last blog ..• Sian Elias and the “Blameless Babes” speech =-.
Jul 21 09 1:12 pm
I broadly agree with much of what you wrote here. In my own post I came at the issue more from the ‘mob’s reaction’ to what was said.
I think in some parts of her speech she was perhaps somewhat woolly, but I do not think Stephen Franks was correct when he called her out for mindless psycho babble.
Keep up the good work.
Unlike many you have read what she said.
.-= adamsmith1922´s last blog ..Cartoon for Today, Tuesday July 21 =-.
Thanks, Adam. I always try to read the actual research/speech rather than just comment on the media article. Nine times out of ten the journalist hasn’t read it either.