Cost of prison
July 30th, 2007 at 8:53 am by David FarrarWow, the cost of keeping a prisoner in prison has increased, since 2001, from $155 a day to $253 a day.
Yet they still can’t keep cellphones and drugs out.
No tag for this post.80 Responses to “Cost of prison”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
July 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
DPF – are you sure those figures don’t INCLUDE the cost of cellphones (including pricing plans) and drugs? Nothing would surprise anymore!!!
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:01 am
no government inflation, just move on
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Yes – and NZ has the second highest per capita prison population in the OECD – 150 per 100,000 (second only to the USA with 600 per 100,000). This is the price of having no welfare state, no unions (NZ has relatively high GDP growth but the lowest wagte growth in the OECD) and consequently a huge underclass that is growing rapidly (proportionate to the bill for locking up those that fall through the cracks in the system it seems).
So what’s National’s solution for this problem? Slash benefits further, and lock more people up. Might as well provide a decent welfare state – better to spend tax dollars on a free man than a prisoner.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:29 am
My old mans resthome care comes in at $94 daily but the hourly average for a resthome carer is $11.25. Not sure what the hourly rate for a screw is but AFAIK a new boy on roster earns 60k+ per annum.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Ummm…wasn”t Power aware that Corrections had just been involved in NZ’s largest public building programme? If you know anything about public finance, you’d realise that this building would add a huge chunk of additional opex to the baseline. You need to start funding depreciation and the capital charge will increase significantly. Bear in mind, too, Corrections has not just built new prisons it has also built masses of new units, new security fencing and a range of other security-driven enhancements. Power is either deliberately disingeneous or his lack of public service experience is shining through.
As Roger points out, the real travesty is not the cost of the prison system – but the fact that so many people are unnecessarily sentenced to prison.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am
So it costs $1700 a week to keep a person in jail! Just imagine if that money was sent on social policy (poverty reduction, education etc …) that kept people out of prison! Bottom line, until you tackle the probem of the underclass you don’t tackle the crime problem or the prison bill.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I agreee. Lets kill all the violent offenders and put the money to better use eh Roger, cause we know what heppens when we let them out.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:02 am
It would be cheaper for New Zealand and more unpleasant for the prisoner if they were put into a penal batallion and stationed in Tekapo.
But killers rapists thieves and other associated desirables have rights that soldiers don’t.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:02 am
the increase in Corrections expenditure is entirely due to inflation and capital expenditure on new prisons – it says so clearly in the Dom article – hoenstly, do you think we don’t read the whole way through?
nevertheless, its expensive to house prisioners and crime itself has massive social costs. far better to provide social services to intervene early in the lives of people in danger of becomeing habitual criminals and provide them with alternative life choices… fundemental to that, of course, has to be a full employment policy (see how the crime rate fall in lock-step with unemployment in the last decade) – which means we have to ignore the likes of Key and Bollard who want higher unemployment to depress wages, because of their inflaitonary impact.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:03 am
“A Corrections spokeswoman said the increase in the cost per prisoner per day came about because of the “operating cost implications of significant capital investment” in recent years.
“This investment was needed because a forecast rise in prisoner numbers meant Corrections had to build additional prison facilities to increase capacity.”
The number of inmates hit a record high of 8076 in May, forcing authorities to accommodate some prisoners in police stations and court cells.
As well as the building of the new prisons – which will add more than 1600 new beds – a further 773 beds have been approved for construction at the existing Rimutaka, Tongariro/Rangipo, Wanganui and Christchurch prisons, the spokeswoman said.
“Without the increased capital costs, the cost per prisoner per day would have only increased marginally due to inflation and an increase in the salaries of Corrections Officers last year.” ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4145260a11.html
Power’s antics are the usual malicious crap the National likes to put up on this topic. RogerNome and DDUx are correct. All we are seeing here is the cost of the NZ’s public’s mean-minded obsession with imprisonment. We demanded tougher sentences and yet at some level of magical thinking…we believed it wouldn’t cost anything.
And Power’s repeated mis-use of the “underfloor heating” in order to convey the false impression that prisons are being built to luxury home standards is especially wrong. The reasons for using underfloor heating in a prison are as follows:
1. It is illegal to design ANY building without providing some form of heating.
2. Failure to maintain a minimum night-time temperature of at least 12 deg (and I’m not sure what targets they are using..16 degC is ideal) WILL lead to increased health problems and increased medical bill for the Corrections Service.
3. In a large concrete structure heating the air only is very inefficient because the dominant thermal mass of the concrete remains cold. The air temp in a cell can be 20degC, but if the walls and floors remain at 12 degC you are wasting money.
4. The physiology of heating and “comfort” is related to a complex of factors, but the upshot is that it is about 35% MORE cost efficient to heat the concrete than the air.
5. And as should be obvious to the dimmest gnat supporter, underfloor heating tubes buried 150mm into the concrete floor are far less vulnerable to malicious damage than any other option.
In fact Corrections is one of the largest public sector consumers of energy and they have been making excellent efficiency gains over the last few years,
“Mr Morris highlights Christchurch Prison as an example of energy efficiency in action. “The prison has reduced its energy costs by half, from about $800 per inmate per year to $400.”
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/news/mediareleases/2003/20030408-energysavvy.html
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Sam Dixon said “the increase in Corrections expenditure is entirely due to inflation and capital expenditure on new prisons – it says so clearly in the Dom article – hoenstly, do you think we don’t read the whole way through?”
Oh that’s right Sam – inflation has run at a cumulative 65% over the last five years – or were you including all the cost blowouts for the new prisons the Corrections were unable to control?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:16 am
roger nome
“until you tackle the probem of the underclass you don’t tackle the crime problem or the prison bill.
Only National acknowledge the underclass. Like you say roger – Vote National.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Ok Redrag what is the alternative to locking up sociopaths who are going to offend again? Bring back reserved occupations for prisoners and make them work for their keep, simple.
I agree that crime must be tackled from both ends. We need to go through a temporary (20-30 years) of higher imprisonment of violent offenders to solve the immediate problem. Combined with that fire the bureaucrats and spend the money on social services in the suburbs. But proper interventionist social services that work with the police instead of against them. Insisting on standards of behaviour for the privilege of having children and getting benefits, removing children and benefits from recidivist criminals because their sociopathic behaviour has been shown to lead time and time again to the types of abuse we have seen.
- Compulsory DNA testing for fathers who must then work to pay for their kids or be put in a work camp to pay for them
- Take benefits and babies of mothers who wont dob the fathers in and keep breeding when they are on benefits.
- take benefits and babies off alcohol and drug abusers
The list of things that can be done is enormous, we just have to have the guts to do it. It will lead to a better society in the future.
The 50 year namby pamby experiment has failed, so lets try something different.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Here roger and sam, take up this guys case – he had such a hard life we should feel sorry for him. He should be let out and given “social services” and perhaps some compensation:
http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/423466/138589
“In the 15 years he was at large Mikus did not stop offending. He physically and sexually abused a succession of female partners. He has fathered at least nine children and has been in contact with them.”
Mikus case is evidence for intergenerational violence:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0405/S00055.htm
As I say, euthanasia by lethal injection is humane and cheap. We’ve locked up the sociopaths, we’ve got the tools, so lets finish the job, eh?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:49 am
The reason we have a high prison population is because we have allowed a lack of discipline and respect to erode the basic principles of a good society The hand wringers and apologists and excusers are the direct cause. Their social engineering experiments of past three decades have failed But instead of accepting their failure they want to not only continue the experiments but expand them.
Vote:Until we break the cycle and start afresh with a new generation that gives instead of takes that takes indiviual responsibility instead of demanding rights we will continue on the silppery slope. And the apologists will keep wondering why.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am
“The reason we have a high prison population is because we have allowed a lack of discipline and respect to erode the basic principles of a good society The hand wringers and apologists and excusers are the direct cause.”
I supppose this is why the liberal scandanavian social democracies have the lowest prison population levels in the world?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Money well spent.
The rope is cheaper.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
What Roger fails to mention about Scandinavian prisons (Finland especially) is that 50% of their prison sentences are suspended. However even with their suspended sentences all Scandinavian prisons rates are on the increase.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Right on GD.
Its all been about rights. No where has there been any emphasis on responsibilities.
I am sick of being held responsible for allowing the detritus and ferals of our society enjoy rights that they have no intention of ever being responsible for.
How do I opt out of responsibility? (I still want my rights thouigh)
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
“However even with their suspended sentences all Scandinavian prisons rates are on the increase.”
Their rates are still half ours and 1/10th the USA’s – no comparison.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Stupid comment of the day: “This is the price of having no welfare state…”
Words fail, roger.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
Well Roger when you suspended 50% (that’s half you idiot) of all sentences of course they will be less. Think McFly think. No comparison my ass.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Cause & effect. So they’re in prison because they’re not getting welfare… or they’re in prison because they are?
In my experience, people sitting around all day tend to have more time on their hands to actually go and commit crime. But what would I know. Lets expand the welfare state – fuck it – give them the dole whilst they’re IN prison.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
“Well Roger when you suspended 50% (that’s half you idiot) of all sentences of course they will be less. Think McFly think. No comparison my ass.”
So no sentinces are ever suspended in New Zealand? Also – let’s see some proof of your assertions please AGJ – a limk wouldn’t be so hard to provide now would it – that’s if what you say has any truth to it.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
“Cause & effect. So they’re in prison because they’re not getting welfare… or they’re in prison because they are? In my experience, people sitting around all day tend to have more time on their hands to actually go and commit crime. But what would I know.”
Welfare state doesn’t necessarily have to involve sitting around on your arse. The government’s policy of full employment back in the 1960s and 1970s was a form of welfare – you know people who couldn’t find work in the private sector were provided with work by the government. Some countries, particularly the social-democratic ones, still do this. Consequently they have the highest employment rates in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_employment_rate
Why just think – for every person in prison the government could be employing four people. That would be around 30,000 more jobs, and many less prisoners.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
A link you say…sure. Bottom of page 18.
Roger you’re a dumbass
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Well done AGJ – now can you show me that no sentences are suspended in New Zealand?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
For an academic Roger you’re quite dim.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Back to the chalkboard Roger, the lunchtime I’m paying you to take is now officially over.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Well, are you going to provide proof or just throw insults around AGJ?
BTW, I’m well aware that I have above average intelligence, so please, let’s stick to the issues rather than have the thread descend into petty name calling.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Don’t be a condescending prat rogered gnome
Now for the last time playtime is over get – back to work!
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
DavidW – yawn! is there anyone here that wants to discuss politics? I mean, I could just trade insults, but i’d rather have an enlightening exchange of ideas.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
The Finnish did come up with two good ideas to reduce the prison population. One is to have an all party agreement on how to deal with crime to take it off the political agenda. Then second, which is controversial is to have a voluntary media blackout on sensational crime reporting. the problem in NZ would be our namby pamby syncophantic politicians and judges would then collude to let every psychopathic killer off scot free like they have virtually tried in the past. however, I guess there are some lessons to be learned. If of course the Fins are spinning their crime statistics it will come back to bite them. this is happening in sweden with up to 20% increases in violent crime each year and major problems in immigrant communities.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Oh please Roger you have your own fixed agenda and will not wave from even if you are proven wrong. You will wank off on some other tangent or post some obscure link to wikipedia. I think you should ask Otago university for a refund.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
AGJ – what a bore you are. You can join Master Baiter in the ignore/inane arsehole bin.
Hi, Porc. It’s good to have a genuine person to discuss the issues with. Firstly, I agree that a cross-party strategy is needed. Violent crime is all too often used by our parties as a political football/vote scoring rhetorical tool. And if a consensus can be reached then the problem can be looked at more objectively. We can look at the facts and get rid of the rhetoric.
I also agree with that a volantary media blackout regarding sensationalist crime reporting.
I would like to add 2 things to that list.
1) Repeat violent offenders need to go away for a long time – particularly the rapists. If people don’t learn from their first or second mistake, it’s unlikely that they’re ever going to learn.
2) At the moment youth unemployment (15-20 year olds) is up around 15%. So, at-risk youths, that have dropped out of the education system, are unemployed, and are getting into trouble with the law) need to have employment, if needs be, provided by the government. This will give them hope that they can improve their lives. They will feel more included are in society, and feel that they really have something to lose if they stuff up – this is the best and most positive form of prevention. As I have said already, it costs $1700 a week to keep a prisoner, so why not employ four at risk youths for this price instead?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Roger and Redrag are brighter than other dumbass lefties around here.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Like wise Roger I usually ignore your inane crap. I’m pleased you have your own blog now I just wish you would stay the fuck there.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
AGJ shhhh! there are adults trying to discuss the issues constructively. Please go somewhere else with you’re sullen, petty and juvenile demeanour.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
… Or of course you are welcom to join the serious discussion AGJ. I know you’ve got it in you, so what do you say?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Oh dear is that the best you can do Roger? Is it?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Guess not then AGJ.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
“Roger and Redrag are brighter than other dumbass lefties around here.”
Meaning they’ve almost reached the intelligence level of a crustacean.
Make relatives pay the cost of incarceration, and if they can’t, sub contract the whole damn jail system to an overseas country and send offenders there to be a looked after. A country like Cuba for example. How could the commies object to that??
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
roger nome One day you and the other apologists will wake up and realise that when there are no boundaries set and penalities applied then you have no order. Having successfully raised 2 children to adulthood I can tell you that giving in to them when they were young kids would have been a damn sight easier that taking a stand and having a set of rules. But it worked. The problem with the intellectual elite is that they think they have a monopoly on all the answers. They dont IMHO they lack common sense. That innate ability to do understand the right thing and when to do it. All the theory in world is worth jackshit against a little bit of common sense.
Good parents (that 2) invariably breed good kids. Bad parent (s) usually dont. Now if you keep on repeating the cycle and just keep on throwing more money at it then you end up with an increasingly more expensive problem.
If however you break the cycle and start again then you get a chance at a better solution. Common sense. Words not in the Socialists lexicon
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Redbaiter -
Its like you people haven’t even been through the basic arguemnts around our social structures, for example why is collective punishment (in this case making relatives pay for the upkeep of prisoners) bad? let us count a few reasons:
1) the relatives have committed no crime, ie they have not been convicted in a court of law of any wrongdoing whatsoever. No just system punishes the innocent for being related to the guilty – its a common trait of inhuman dictatorships though.
2) the relatives won’t necessarily have the means to pay
3) impoverishing the relatives means they are more likely to turn to crime (poor people all more likely to commit crimes, simple fact)
4) by punishing the innocent you build resentment to the State and society and damge their legitiamcy in the eyes of those who have been punished without cause – that’s the classic recipe for revolt.
Ok- lets ship the ‘whole damned system’ overseas.
1) where to? lets say one of the Pacific Islands that is sufficently large to provide the guards and maintaince staff is willing – Papua New Geniua, Fiji, Samoa – we’re going to have to pay for all the staff and associated costs plus some kind of payment to the governments for dumping our problem on them. (Nauru got $100 million, wasn’t it? for a few hundred refugees on th Tampa)
- then 2) we have to build all the new prisons, how much will that cost? They have to be built to decent regulations so a) people won’t escape b) they won’t get sick c) they won’t hurt each other (why do we care if convicts get sick or hurt each other? becuase they will be released at some point in the future, they have not been given a death sentence, keeping them healthy is cheper than treating illness, it might just turn out a few are innocent – you don’t wnat them dying of malaria, and they are still humans, and so they won’t spread disease to the prison staff or hurt the staff)
3) then we have to get them out ot that country and back in a secure manner – all very expensive, and as most prison sentences are for only a few months, you’ll be doing tens of thousnads of those trips every year.
4) when those jokers get back to NZ, they’re going to be out in soicety again, has been shipped off to some Pacific hellhole equipped them in any way to be better citizens? like fukk it has.
Good one Redbaiter – your suggestions are expensive, unworkable, immoral, and would lead to higher crime – genius.
Innventory2 – read the article – the extra costs are inflation and capital expenditure, the marginal cost of having one extra prisoner had not gone up in real terms.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Bring back the death penalty for murder and double the minimum sentence for every offence from home invasion and above. In 10 years have a referendum to decide if we should go back to what we have at the moment. The referendum could be held at the same time as the promised one to review MMP to save money. Let the 99% of honest people decide.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pm
roger I agree with your comments and that is all I have been advocating. For violent crime 3 strikes and your out seems like a bit lenient to me but at least it would be a step in the right direction.
From my experience in some of these cases the criminal training starts in the home in the pre-teen years, believe me. So I also advocate very firm but very fair intervention in the dysfunctional families and would be prepared as a taxpayer to see resources go into it, but it must produce results this time, not just be another feeding trough full of bureaucrats and pipi foundations.
I definitely disagree with prison for non-violent offences and crimes of dishonesty etc. The penalties for those should be debt until reparation is made, but the people could stay in the community.
But I think you will find that is the system we have now – if you released all the non-violent offenders you’d only have a bit of small change to put into your programs. The money would have to come from somewhere else but some of the social departments are so well staffed you could give them the choice of getting out from behind their PCs and into the community and on the streets or find another job, and that would go half way to solving the problem. I know this also from the difficulties of getting psychiatric services to people who need them.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Good ideas bwakile.
Sam I agree with not charging the relatives EXCEPT one set of realtives – the parent(s) or caregivers. In a lot of cases these real psychos have been brought up by criminals and they should pay for that.
Inability to pay is no excuse. If someone does a crime then the punishment should be reparation, evne if they are in debt for 50 years to do it. Thats fair.
For the real sickos (who most of us are really wanting to do something about) there are generally two categories:
1. Psychologically disturbed people. they should be institutionalised in good conditions often for ever for the sake of themselves and society. This is a cost that society must bear no matter waht, and the outing and mainstreaming has been another total BS white wellington liberal con-job.
2. The sociopaths. Now you may call them human but I sure as hell don’t so they can have hard labour or, if they choose, I will volunteer to euthanase them.
Roger, I’m sure that we are not that far appart on this issue. You should join SST and give them your suggestions. They are not the draconian organisation the media paints them to be – they would be very interested.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“impoverishing the relatives means they are more likely to turn to crime (poor people all more likely to commit crimes, simple fact)”
Simple fact my arse. Sam you’re such a child with your stupid immature discredited doctirnes. There are instances of communities of poor people all over the world WHO DO NOT STEAL.
In times gone by, poverty has been much worse in NZ, AND PEOPLE DID NOT STEAL.
Fuck off, you’re a detached from reality fool. ..and when you keep propounding such myths as this, you give people licence to steal. Its you Sam, you and your comie attacks on moral standards within the community that have caused crime to sky rocket in this country. You and your ideology. Look at any socialist country. High crime rates.
End of story.
The rest of your deranged crap I don’t have the time to deal with.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
“If however you break the cycle and start again then you get a chance at a better solution. Common sense. Words not in the Socialists lexicon”
So how do force parents to be “responsible”? Withdraw benefits for “irresponsible” parents? Great because we all know that extreme poverty is a breeding ground for civilised citizens
I repeat again – there is nothing better form of crime prevention than a decent full-time job. So what’s wrong with the scheme I outline above? If this scheme is carried out, it only needs to stop one in four of the youths involved in it from going to jail, in order to pay for itself. Who could be against that?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
There’s no such thing as ‘poverty’ in New Zealand and therein, lies part of the problem.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
“There are instances of communities of poor people all over the world WHO DO NOT STEAL.”
Yes – these would be small, egalatarian societies with a strong sense of collective responsability. Doesn’t exactly describe present day New Zealand does it?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Roger your idea is good but you would have to make them work if they didn’t want to – and I got pilloried for that the other day. I agree that this could well work for the kids but you have another generation to deal with – the parents who are bringing these kids up.
So we also do need to look at tying the benefit to good social behaviour both in the parents and the kids and of course if the benefit was removed the kids would have to be also.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
RB, it is a pity that the present generation of lefties have to suffer the consequences of the wooly thinking of the last generation of lefties though – have a bit of compassion for them.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
“Roger your idea is good but you would have to make them work if they didn’t want to”
Porc – give someone a choice between earning $400 a week, and no money and they’ll always choose the $400. This is why we had full employment in the 1960s and 1970s – the government offered jobs to people who couldn’t find work – they had the choice between taking the decently paid government job and having no money. Simple choice. People want to work and have money – no one wants to be poor.
“So we also do need to look at tying the benefit to good social behaviour both in the parents and the kids and of course if the benefit was removed the kids would have to be also.”
I can see where you’re coming from with this one, but this will just drive the most at-risk kids into poverty – and why should they be punished for the stuff-ups of their parents?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
oops -didn’t read your last point fully porc -
So you’re saying that if the parents of poor kids miss-behave they should removed to foster care? You do realise that foster kids often experience an un-settled life, being shifted from family to family, city to city. They often end up feeling totaly unwanted/worthless/rejected because of this. It’s a perfect way to create a criminal. Not a good idea unfortunately.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Many of these recent cases could have been identified before the kids even bonded with their parents. If parents have a history of violent antisocial behaviour then the kid is better removed early from them.
Here is a corrections booklet that shows how many resources already go into helping offenders. On the whole its good but I do have a problem wtih it being a slap in the face for the victims and the genuinely disadvantaged honest people like those on the minimum wage.
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/pdf/correctionsnews/sep2004.pdf
I love this bit:
“Planning a sentence
Whether it’s 13 weeks or 13 years, all newly sentenced
Vote:inmates are assigned a sentence planner who identifies
and creates a tailor-made programme that aims to upskill
the inmate and halt the cycle of offending.”
July 30th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
“People want to work and have money – no one wants to be poor.”
Roger, if you studied human nature as much comparative economics you would know that this is bollocks. “No one wants to be poor” is true – which is why a certain % of society will steal and carry out illegal stuff as they have no desire to “work”. This is the % that need to be punished severely.
As a taxpayer I have no problem with paying to lock people up, better than giving it a printer to print pledge cards.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
“Roger, if you studied human nature as much comparative economics you would know that this is bollocks.”
Um – I have a first-class honors degree in anthropology – so I certainly have an interest in studying “human nature”.
So tell me if people just want to languish in poverty why was there virtually no unemployment in the 1960s and 1970s?
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I’m no expert on the 60,s-70′s as I was just a kid but seem to recollect that there were plenty of jobs in agriculture and manufacturing for starters.
Having a degree in something makes you an “ex spurt” but only life can teach you human nature.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
That document certainly does point up the down side of this new trendy PC “client focused” or “outcome oriented” doublespeak crap that was pioneered by an unholy alliance of the left and the free marketeers – it show clearly that corrections considers criminals and their families to be their “clients” and the public at large merely one of the “stakeholders”.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
“I’m no expert on the 60,s-70’s as I was just a kid but seem to recollect that there were plenty of jobs in agriculture and manufacturing for starters.”
absolutely, but both National and labour governments had a policy called “full-employment” (it was dropped in the 1980s) – this is what ensured that unemployment was virtually non-existent. BTW, the unemployment benefit was available back then, but nobody opted for it as the government made sure that jobs were readily available.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Thats right Porc, Corrections has got much more to do with having an “industry” that requires controlling, managing, governing than locking up crooks
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“Many of these recent cases could have been identified before the kids even bonded with their parents. If parents have a history of violent antisocial behaviour then the kid is better removed early from them.”
Hmm – this is a tough one Porc. You may have a point but I would be hesitant to take kids off their parents without giving them a chance. You know, parenthood can wake people up/give them a kick in the pants.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Maybe the government should open some shoe factories then because noone else can.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
“Maybe the government should open some shoe factories then because noone else can.”
Or maybe govt could offer some contracts to private companies in to provide jobs to “at-risk” youths. You know like, say the government offers to pay half the kid’s wages, and in return the business takes the risk of employing them. It would have to be done in such a way that other people weren’t squeezed out of the labour market though. Could be tricky.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
following on from my last post ….
if the government used this strategy they would be giving eight “at-risk” youths full-time jobs for the price of keeping one prisoner. So if this scheme helped to keep just one in eight of these “at-risk” youths out of prison, the tax payer wold have lost no money in funding it. Surely this is value for money.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
not a bad idea Roger
Having employed between 200-300 people over the years I have always found that people prepared to work will always find work. Employment is as much a mindset thing as an opportunity thing.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
“Having employed between 200-300 people over the years I have always found that people prepared to work will always find work. Employment is as much a mindset thing as an opportunity thing.”
You’re smart enough to know that’s not true bwakile – i.e. why was unemployment 11% in 1991, and 3.6% in 2005? Job availability has a lot to do with it as well of course. You know, supply and demand? My idea increases demand for at-risk youth workers, so it would serve to give those a chance who are at the fringes of the labour market – instead of sitting at home smoking pot and playing play-station they would be out learning work-skills and making a living.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
AGJ,
The link you provided earlier has proven a very interesting read. I’m not at all sure if you intended it to support the “reduction of imprisonment” argument, but I’ve just plowed through all 52 pages of it … an excellent read thank you. It is from a Scottish organisation. Here’s the raw link again:
http://www.sacro.org.uk/publications/offending2005.pdf
The table on p.16 highlights once again the anomolously high imprisonment rates here in NZ. Just to reprise the top 10 entries in the table: (Rates/100,000)
USA 701
Russian Fed 595
NZ 155
Eng&Wales 140
Spain 137
Portugal 134
Scotland 129
Canada 119
Australia 114
Italy 100
Dropping to a low of 64 in Norway. Clearly NZ’ers should not be at all comfortable with our ranking in this list. And the current proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility, WITHOUT any discussion of better alternatives to prison for such young offenders, amounts to merely pouring petrol on the fire.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
I still find it astounding that in this day and age people think that the government can create jobs!
When National makes noises about work for the dole it is met with derision from the left. Labour have been on record as saying it will not consider this.
But it has been my opinion that a government cannot create jobs, it can only create the conditions for employment growth. I know that when people want to work, but they want a real job that means something, a job they can be proud of.
With regard to the prison population, I still believe that when young offenders enter the justice system, they are too softly treated and this is to their detritment. A short sharp shock would be of far greater benefit than the slap on the wrist that these offenders currently get.
Personally, Youth offenders should be directed to something similar to Military training, with the goal of building these young people up. It can be done and I have seen it done in the military in New Zealand.
Failing that, the NZ Government should study how youth offenders are treated in Costa Rica, where they are placed in youth facilities which are heavily supervised and the empahsis is on education.
We need to nip these tendancies in the bud. The current system is a joke and only serves to perpetuate itself.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I must say the national party was more inventive, during the early 90s, they cut the cost of running prisons by indroducing serving one third of the sentence in jail.
of course its only a one off drop that cant be repeated, but it meant no new prisons were built, except Mt Eden remand, for 9 years.
Of course it took labour to indroduce LONGER non parole periods, so that the worst murders and rapist routinely get 15 years plus, when they got out in 10 to 12 under national for murderers and 8 to 10 for rapist.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Redrag it was an interesting read but please enough of the spin already. We have anomolously high inprisonment rates because we have an anonomously high crime rate. The reason is that whenever some overseas liberal wahcked out idea raises itself NZers race in and adopt it as our own go overboard and implement it in the most radical fashion. Consequently we are further down the track than many other countries in the namby pamby excusing of violent crime, turning a blind eye to entrenched abusive environments for children etc because we are so scared of appearing repressive. We open mindedness ourselves into a degenerate and represhnsibly behaved society.
“And the current proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility, WITHOUT any discussion of better alternatives to prison for such young offenders, amounts to merely pouring petrol on the fire.”
Yep, I agree – any thing but intervene properly by locking up the criminally negligent parents, taking their benefits off them and putting the resources in to the children to break the cycle of violence.
Roger, yes yes yes I agree with all the targeting to the salvagable. At present their ages are 2-5 years or perhps 9 or 10 at a pinch. But you have a cohort of 2nd or 3rd generation iwith the CV that I keep repeating aged between 10 and 30 something that we ned to deal with also. I have suggested some things like not letting them breed voluntarily and not paying their way unless they meat stringent benchmarks of social behaviour as one option. Locking up ones that are an obvious danger to their children, partners and society is anouther option we need to use. Take the Dutch tourist rapists, 100 previous convictions many of which will have been violent or at least threatening WTF???
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Selma,
“they cut the cost of running prisons by indroducing serving one third of the sentence in jail.”
- and violent crime balloned out of control in the 90s and we haven’t reigned it in yet.
“the worst murders and rapist routinely get 15 years plus”
- pathetic sentence even if they serve the whole lot; but they’re up for parole after 1/2 the sentence. 92% of us sold out again.
Lord only knows how many of them get to go home for xmas, out to tangi’s, have conjugal visits – another sicko slap in the face for the victims.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 9:33 pm
“Youth offenders should be directed to something similar to Military training, with the goal of building these young people up. ”
- yes I’d forgot the idea of discipline, life skill training and hard physical activity, and
- a good wake up call the first time they offend
Both those ideas are definite keepers, thanks slightlyrighty!
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Over and again the same lament about the alledged moral degeneracy of the current generations, all this finger pointing and blame-making, and yet no-one wants to speak to the obvious.
The fundamentals of moral virtue have to be taught before puberty. The primary responsibility lies with the mother and father; failing them their wider family or the wider community. A child that enters adulthood devoid of the ability to discern right from wrong, unfamiliar with elementary courtesy and crippled by social shortcomings is going to be a burden to themselves and their fellow humans all their lives.
Capable parents will have the native wit and skill to inculcate much of these skills to their fortunate children; but even so the traditional landmarks have largely changed; the extended family is scattered, the churches power is diminished and the nations themselves are no longer homogeneous cultures. Even well meaning parents can loose their way; in hindsight most look back with some regrets about things they would do differently if they could.
How much harder for the child born to parents who were lost from the very outset.
It is the role of society’s institutions, the Police and Courts, to prosecute, convict and punish. It is an onerous duty we place on them; and the people who we entrust to that often unpleasant work deserve more respect and support. Who among us would willingly work in such an evil place as a prison?
The wisdom of all faiths teaches us to forgive. However hard that may be. Turning the other cheek is not about passively accepting injustice, it about not giving into the desire for revenge, about controlling anger and destructive passion. In this life our hope of justice lies with a society that strives (however imperfectly) to restrain and punish oppressors; and failing that faith inspires us to leave matters to God’s justice. Forgiveness releases us from anger and betrayal, grief and hatred, and allows rule-based justice to take it’s place.
To create a just society and possess a tranquil heart is the purpose of our lives. Yet strangely we find the roles reversed. The people are obsessed with vengeance, and our institutions both underfunded and mis-directed, mistake leniency for reform, and incarceration for punishment.
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
But isn’t it all about protecting the weak? Forgiveness has got us into a situation where we have about 100 killings a year and 40000 crimes of violence. Do we continue to forgive, turn the other cheek and ignore it for another generation, or do we go through some short term gain for long term pain. [We dont have a good record of that viz 1980s reforms wasted, but thats another story].
Vote:July 30th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
For those who think there is a lot of slack in the system for reducing imprisonment rates terms here are some figures:
Violence and sex offenders make up > 60% of the prison population and 80% of them have more than one prior conviction (see below)
Violence Sex Property Drugs Traffic Misc
36.4% 21.7% 22.2% 8.8% 8.2 % 2.7%
70% if you assume most of the traffic is violence with a car category.
Number of prior sentences of inmates:
0 1-10 11-20 21-200+
21% 24% 14% 41%
Age of first sentence
14-16 17 – 19 20-24 >25
10% 49% 17% 24%
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/public/research/census/
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 11:51 am
“But it has been my opinion that a government cannot create jobs, it can only create the conditions for employment growth.”
History has another opinion – and so to the present day social democracies slightly righty. Of course you are free to ignore the empirical evidence already presented in my above posts and continue to believe that governments can’t create employment.
Let me put it in market-speak for you. The government offers to pay half the wages of an at-risk youth. This has the effect of lowering the cost of labour for that particular demographic. Cost demand curves tell us that when cost goes down, demand increases. So when labour is cheaper employers move down their damand curves, and hire more people. Simple economics. It’s a targeted labour market intervention which would see more at-risk youths hired at a decent wage rate. Essentially it’s addressing a market failure, that’s causing a lot of pain in our communities The market failure being that around 20% of teenage labour force are unemployed, and the figures are much higher for our Maori youth.
Note that this is not an offensive “work for the dole” proposition. These schemes always seem to demand that people work for next to nothing – effectively aboloshing the minimum wage.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 1:31 pm
roger nome IMHO its the PC problem that prevents any government from implementing the policies that would reduce the numbers of dysfunctional families. My observation is that the further Left you are the least likely to be prepared to intervene before the worst happens. So some say we have to wait until there is a case such as abuse or death. Those of us on the Right say Heh the government has many powers to interfer. At my last count my private home could be invaded by 32 different represenatatives of the State without my invitation. So whats the problem,
Its the truth that dare not speak its name . The pollies and civils servant are shit scared of any back lash The PM now pussy foots the problem even though her officals own figures are clear as crystal .
Hence my policy to Isolate Contain and Reduce. Remember the Jesuit priests Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man. Very simple Very true Yet to be disproved by the so called experts despite centuries of trying.
Money is not the answer. Throwing millions upon millions of dollars hasnt fixed the problem to date. Reason Its not about money Its about the top two inches.Unless that area is addressed by starting afresh history will continue to repeat and repeat.
Vote:July 31st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“roger nome IMHO its the PC problem that prevents any government from implementing the policies that would reduce the numbers of dysfunctional families.”
So we legislate mass-kidnapping? Put all the kids that possibly belong to dysfunctional families into foster/state care?
Firstly, that would involve tens of thousands of children, so it’s not politically or economically practicable. The public outcry would be deafening, and the cost of the operation would run in to the tens of millions. Secondly, if it was practicable, it would wouldn’t achieve anything as foster care often involves young kids being shuffled around from family to family in perpetual insecurity – must be a horrible experience – an ideal way to create future criminals. And then there’s the constant reports of paedophiles operating as foster care-givers. Surely foster care is only desirable if the child is under serious physical threat from their care giver(s), and CYFS are already there to remove children from such situations.
Vote: