Babies in Jail
June 29th, 2006 at 9:12 am by David FarrarInteresting to note that every party in Parliament voted for Sue Bradford’s bill allowing mothers in prison to keep their babies with them until they turn two.
Possibly this is because, like me, they have no idea what is the correct age.
I have no idea whether seperation at birth, at six months or two years is better. This is one issue where I’d be guided by some good research.
No tag for this post.
June 29th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Either seperation at birth, in which case it is enforced adaoption, or the later the better.
The first is likely to be very trumatic to the mother and possibly later down the tract to the child.
It seems to me that conservatives generally argue the case for the primacy of the family, the importance of the mother/child relationship etc, so it would be a high bar to show that disrupting this bond is less negative than the effect of prison.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 9:37 am
From my experience as a father and grandfather I don’t think separation at any young age is desirable. If it has to happen 2 is probably a good age. Under that they are babies. Over that they are toddlers needing to get experience of the world. A lot depends on who will look after them.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 9:45 am
certainly talkback radio seems to be against extension of the age, but I appreciate that is is somewhat of a difficult issue. My personal thoughts are very mixed. But having worked for Corrections, i am aware of a few statistics.
The average term of a female prison sentence is about three years.
about 80% of women in prison have drug issues
about 80% have dependant children
about 65% are maori
females make up 5-6% of the total prison population
there are three female prisons in NZ – South Auckland, Wellington (tawa) and christchurch – this means that women from provincial areas are isolated from family support
While men are often lucky enough to have their women folk visit them, the converse is not true and women mostly do not get visited in prison.
The illiteracy rate is extremely high
women in prison usually from from violent and abusive backgrounds
The re-offending rate for women is much lower than for men.
so should women be able to keep babies longer – personally i don’t know the answer – what are the consequences for the child (should be the first thought – will the child get better care with extended family? will this just mean more women use the baby as an excuse to get out of jail sooner, or to get better conditions in jail.
and How many women are we taling about on an annual basis anyway – is it 10 ot 15 – or is it 60 or 100?
this issie is too complicated to answer without the benefit of detailed research. Parliament were correct to send this to select committee.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Ok so CYPS will lie and ignore the justice system to kidnap a child from a family who succesfully disciplines him but THESE represent fit parents?????
You labour voters must be real proud.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 10:01 am
How many women are we taling about on an annual basis anyway – is it 10 ot 15 – or is it 60 or 100?
The linked article has some information on this:
At present there are 13 pregnant women in New Zealand’s prisons.
The Corrections Department refuses to disclose precisely how many babies are with their mothers behind bars, but says that at any one time between two and five infants are housed in prison.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 10:21 am
What about the fathers? IF the father has a stable environment for the baby, it would be better for the child to go to him. But that’s a big IF.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 10:34 am
good comments/insights from peter mc….the illiteracy/abusive backgrounds have always been par for the course in penal institutions…why there aren’t compulsory literacy courses/testing regimes in prisons boggle the mind…
lock em up illiterate…and throw them back out into society illiterate….duh..!
and as a male who has been prime caregiver of a nipper since birth…i would agree the (if suitable) father option would/should be of equal import to the mother as prime caregiver…
and if all else fails..the nippers should spend longer than two years with their mothers…(about 4-5…but each case judged on its’ merits..)
(sad about the female prisoners not getting as many visits as the men..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 10:46 am
“You labour voters must be real proud.”
As must ACT voters and National Voters – the bill passed it’s first reading unanimously.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 11:12 am
As they will most likely spend their adult years there I guess leaving them with the mother will get them used to the environment
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 11:19 am
Does it count as time serveed against future offences?
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Just when you thought it was safe to stand up, out comes another Blizzard of “PC SHITE”
Vote:1 – they can take their offspring to prison IF they are happy to have the child in general population.
2 – no extra funds are made available to set up secure wings for mothers with kids, as this Govts handling of the prison issue to date has been nothing but PATHETIC, (who builds a house and forgets to budget steel into the foundations) PATHETIC.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
The babies should be allowed to stay with their mothers for at least 4 years, during which time the mother should be fed lot’s of raw milk, home made kefir, home made sour dough bread, fruits, vegetables, meat and other health foods, and be breast feeding her young offspring.
this is absolutely essential to prevent the young baby from developing tooth cavities, osteoporoses and other degenerative diseases in later life which is what will happen if baby is fed the toxic baby formulas and canned dead food on supermarket shelves.
further, good books and music and creative toys and learning materials should be supplied and the mother should be encouraged to read to their young babies and play good music to them to develop their senses.
mothers should be in a different part of the prison to the general prison population, and should be given all the support necessary to enable them to become quality parents and nurture their young as best as possible.
exposure of the baby to their natural father and other close family members is also desirable if at all possible either through the father visiting the prison or the baby going out for stays with the father if he is in a position to provide a suitable environment for the baby.
notwithstanding the fact that the mother may have committed an offence and be serving time for same, the baby has a right to bond to it’s mother in it’s young years, be breastfed, read aloud to, exposed to good music, and creative toys and learning materials that develop it’s mind and hand – eye co-ordination etc.
in the long term this will benefit mother, baby and society in general.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Another vote for the fathers!
While I can see the benefits of increasing the bond between mother and child, rehabilitation and all that how can a prison be a suitable place for a child? Aren’t the first 3 years when character is formed?
And if I were to have a baby today the Government consider 6 weeks at home with my baby to be enough. If I commit a crime I need 2 years.
Go figure!
In the unlikely event that I commit a crime before my ovaries pack up you can bet I’ll be pregnant before sentencing. What a luxury to be able to enjoy a baby without juggling work and home!
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Sarah let’s look at it the other way.
Instead of saying that because the Govt deems mothers only need 6 weeks with baby outside prison the women in prison should suffer the same, let’s reverse it and say that in the same way that women in prison need this vital time with baby, so to do all women and their babies.
Mothering is far too undervalued, under rated and under respected in modern society, and we pay for it in our health, education, employment and crime stats.
Mothering is the most important task any female who has children will ever perform in life.
Raising a new life is far more important (and hopefully rewarding for the mothers who embrace it) than any career promotion, board meeting or business trip.
Bonding & breastfeeding, teaching a child to read, write, play, ride a bike, enjoy the wonders of nature and discover new things are far richer and more rewarding experiences than sitting in at the office under fluorescent lights staring at a computer screen or putting on loads of make-up and showing up at a 6pm board-meeting to talk a whole lot of stuff that could probably have been dealt with over email and a 5 minute conference call.
Those are my thoughts anyway, and I applaud all women (and men if they choose too also) who take the time out of career & business etc to enjoy the early years with their children.
In your later years the experiences you have with your children and the way you watched them develop will mean far more to you than the hours spent in peak time traffic, words uttered in board meetings and the frantic office deadlines you worked overtime to meet.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I can’t see a problem with it. At least the cost for the mother to look after the baby in prison would be less expensive than Fostering the baby out. I agree with Nationals Catherine Rich she said the baby doesn’t know or care where it is, as long as it has it’s mother to look after it. Fair Comment.
Vote:I suppose the likes of I.P. & Culma, Camryn, Ross & Graham Miller and Co would like to see the babies bought up in a Oliver Twist style institution?
June 29th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“Mothering is the most important task any female who has children will ever perform in life.”
Oh, please. Tell that to Marie Curie. Or Ruth Richardson. Personally rewarding, perhaps, but not necessarily “important”.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Todays herald front page has a heart-rending story of a mother who had her child taken from her after 8 months in prison. She was so distressed she went back on drugs. She said there were heaps of drugs in prison. So in my view most of the so vital breast milk would be contaminated with drugs possibly addicting the infant. The babies are likely to have many defacto Aunties who will be just as tolerant as the Kahuis when the baby starts crying.The babies will how-ever be well fed and warm from under-floor heating keeping the room temperature consistently above 16degrees. Free medical attention on call all at taxpayer expense so I suppose there are some pluses.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Could have phrased that better – raising kids is important work, but to suggest that it’s the most important thing a woman can do begs the question of why it’s not the most important thing a man can do, and what that says about women’s non-motherly contributions to society.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
trouble,
From the article you linked to –
“She was noted to have an amazing memory and a diligent work ethic, neglecting even food and sleep while studying. After graduating from high school, she suffered a mental breakdown for a year.”
Obviously nobody told her that all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy and Jill a dull girl!
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
And? If you think Marie Curie should have done something else with her life, you might want to rule out chemotherapy if you ever need it just a statement of principle.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Chemotherapy is toxic for health.
The last thing a body needs is radiation. It does nothing to rebuild healthy cells.
If one is suffering cancer one needs to consume enzyme rich health foods to rebuild the body’s cells.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
I think that both parents should have access, though I think that the state of male prisions wouldn’t be the best place for a youngin to be.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
The baby may as well stay in jail, atleast the mother may get the support and parenting skills that she may not on the outside.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 5:36 pm
“Could have phrased that better – raising kids is important work, but to suggest that it’s the most important thing a woman can do begs the question of why it’s not the most important thing a man can do, and what that says about women’s non-motherly contributions to society.”
I said that “Mothering” is the most important thing a female who has children will do. The reason it’s not the most important thing a man can do is because he would be the Father not the Mother.
Being a Father is the most important thing a Man who has children can do, in the same way that being a Mother is the most important thing a Woman with children can do.
Nothing is more important than raising one’s own children if you have them. I don’t say this to diminish other important things that people may do in their lifetime, but I do believe that if you are a parent of children, then being their Father or their Mother is the most important task you will fulfill during your lifetime. How your children turn out and what they do in their life times is a living legacy that survives when you die.
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Does Sue Bradford really not have enough things more important to tackle???
Here we are wasting Parliaments time with a Private Members Bill (PMB) that will address an issue in which 13 people are affected! In this country of over 4 Million people we are debating an issue that affects less than 0.000325% of the population!! You must be joking??
What about more important issues in our society like babies being killed and the Police pussy footing around with a bunch of misfits, instead of taking the hard line with them!
What next – a PMB that addresses the issue of microchipping or not microchipping a working dog, with 3 legs, one eye, no tail and a black spot on their left side?????
PCism gone mad again!
Vote:June 29th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Battler
>>Instead of saying that because the Govt deems mothers only need 6 weeks with baby outside prison the women in prison should suffer the same, let’s reverse it and say that in the same way that women in prison need this vital time with baby, so to do all women and their babies.
You misread my outrage. It wasn’t that they should only get 6 weeks, it’s the shame on the Government that they think women should put aside breastfeeding, bonding, nurturing and be back at work after 6 measly weeks.
Believe me, I’ve done the hard yards, and with no paid leave. I took 8 months, then 6 months and only worked part time. To have been able to put work on hold for 2 years would have been marvellous.
As it was I was turned down for programs like PAFT because their funding didn’t extend to all mothers who needed help. I’m flattered that I’m considered low risk because I speak a certain way and live in a particular part of town. But stats say that history repeats – I guess they got lucky that some of us can break the cycle on our own.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 6:52 am
Which is more important? Punishing a woman or providing for a young child?
I’d hope that you’d all say that the welfare of the child comes first. Well I don’t think that a baby should spend two years in jail. I’m no psychologist but surely the unpleasantness, tension, the lovely neighbours and a whole bunch of other negative stuff in jail would be detrimental to a baby.
Assuming the mother is not a serious danger to the safety of others then I believe she should be permitted to spend the first two years of the child’s life at home under home detention. Of course this would require close supervision and the home and its environment would have to be suitable and safe for a child. If the woman keeps to the rules, looks after the child well and does not re-offend in any way then I believe the remainder of her sentence should either be suspended or served as home detention.
There will be people who will bleat to high heaven about these suggestions but i think that at all times we should remember that the baby has committed no crime. As a caring society we should shelve our desire to punish someone for their crimes in favour for the desire to help one of our own – i.e. the young baby that from day one is seriously disadvantaged through no fault of his or her own.
Oh… and Murray I got a laugh from your post… very droll! But your observation does highlight the point that jail time is still jail time regardless of your age.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 10:28 am
Does anyone have the stats on the children of women who do time winding up back there.And a comparison with the children who were adopted out at birth to a family independent of the mothers/fathers.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Absolutely not!
Underground heating – free nappies – 24/7 medical advice available – room service – hotel room with own shower – where else would be better raise your kids?
Let the fathers take the responsibility. The mothers waivered their parental rights when they broke the law to such a degree that incarceration is imposed.
Its more humane to remove a child at 6 months than 2 years. At 0 – 6 months a child is more interested in food and filling nappies, rather than who actually feds them or wipes their bum.
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Subsequent life situation – talk or write a composition of where you were born and your earliest memories.
“er er Paremoremo”
Vote:June 30th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Armoured Passionfruit, I don’t fully understand your position. A mother that has committed offenses requiring incarceration is still a mother. You say such mothers have ‘waived their parental rights.’
I disagree. And certainly the child has no ability to choose his or her parents. But that child must have the opportunity to know and maybe love his or her parents regardless of what they may have done.
I agree with your second post … no kid should grow up in the Po. That’s plain awful. Put the child first even if we must swallow the bitter pill that a female offender (or male offender in rare cases) gets a deferred prison stint to give the kid a chance at something like a normal start to life.
Vote:July 3rd, 2006 at 9:09 am
Let me put it to you in this way.
Would a woman in prison be treated any differently than another, if she were pregnant or had a child?
Short answer is yes.
Go to prison and start your breeding programme.
Vote: