Private Prisons to return

April 15th, 2010 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Delighted to see the new Wiri prison will be openly tendered. Not only may it cost less, but more importantly it provides opportunities to have a lower escape rate, and a higher rehabilitation rate.

Now Labour have said:

Locking people up in jails is a job for the state, not for private businesses whose prime motivation will inevitably be to make money out of a PPP venture, says Labour Law and Order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove.

As usual, they put ideology ahead of any potential gains. But let’s rewrite their press release to show how stupid their statement is:

Prosecuting criminals is a job for the state, not for private businesses whose prime motivation will inevitably be to make money out of prosecutions, says Labour Law and Order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove.

Prosecutions are just as much a core part of the criminal justice system, as are prisons. And we already have what is effectively PPPs in the crown law system.

The Crown Law office sets policies and standards for prosecutions, but contracts private law firms to do most of the prosecutions. Those private law firms make money out this arrangement.So why is Labour not calling for prosecutions to be nationalised?

Labour’s great weakness is their inability to put aside ideology to do what is best.

Some may accuse National of doing the same, but I can point to a specific counter in the law & order field.

Criminal defence work is also effectively privatised at present. It is done by private lawyers and law firms. However National is supporting and expanding the Crown’s Public Defender Service, as it has found in this case it can produce better outcomes. This is effectively nationalising a small part of something that was previously done purely by the private sector.

Tags:

51 Responses to “Private Prisons to return”

  1. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Isn’t it interesting that the government is looking to privatise prisons while nationalising criminal defence? Never let it be said they are ideologically consistent, eh?

    Edit: and the PPP’s that is the Crown Solicitor’s network is also being looked at for nationalisation, all in the name of efficiency. Oddly enough, the Crown Solicitors firms are usually one of the most profitable forms of law form you can find in NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Oh, and while I am at it- prosecutions should be nationalised. But criminal defence should remain in the hands of private lawyers.

    Edit: but I am all for private prisons, funnily enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I congratulate National for their stance on privatising prisons, but have to take issue with this statement-

    “Some may accuse National of doing the same,” (putting aside their ideology to do what is good).

    Who on earth would accuse National of this? Try as much as I can, I cannot see that National subscribes to any ideology at all.

    As is shown by the revelation in your closing paragraph that National is expanding the Crown’s Public Defender Service at the expense of the private sector. How was the decision that this “produces better outcomes” arrived at??

    No expansion of government has ever produced “better outcomes”. Ronald Reagan knew that, and by working in accord with this ideology, he was able to bring about significant improvements in America’s political and social condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    It’s rather interesting that the Corrections Association and the Green Party are claiming that private prisons will lead to more corruption when just yesterday ….

    http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/04/irony.html

    It rather dents their argument!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wreck1080 (3,922 comments) says:

    yah, this is the difference between labour and national.

    Labour will always want control. Control is power, and labour are fearful that private sector delegation will erode their absolute power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Red, the public defence services does not produce better outcomes. The reporting of this by both the LSA and the Bazely report is based on flawed data fromt the LSA. What the PDS hasn’t done is the high cost trials that push expenses up, so we find that in the low level cases it is cheaper to have a PDS lawyer, but in the bigger cases it is usually cheaper to have a non-pds lawyer.

    Even that data is flawed, because some of the costs are not factored in to the PDS figures that should be. If you look at the law society response to the PDS reports, you will find a more accurate picture of the situation.

    The expansion of the public defender scheme is ideological, not based on efficiency.

    Private contractors will always be more efficient, which is why prisons should be privatised.

    However, my view that prosecutions should be by a government department is totally ideoligical!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    “However National is supporting and expanding the Crown’s Public Defender Service, as it has found in this case it can produce better outcomes.”

    So it has been found [citation needed?] to give better results, and yet without knowing anything about the veracity of this Baiter opposes it because it’s not ideologically pure.

    Free advice baiter: Most voters don’t follow Kiwiblog and don’t give a fcuk about political ideologies. This is why no-one listens to you, apart from other zealots on the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Not only may it cost less, but more importantly it provides opportunities to have a lower escape rate, and a higher rehabilitation rate.

    I’m in favour of private prisons but I’m not sure how you arrive at the latter two points above.

    [DPF: The contracts incentivise them to minimise the former and maximise the latter]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. peterwn (3,274 comments) says:

    “Prosecuting criminals is a job for the state, not for private businesses.” I take issue with this paraphrase. A government (including a local body) would be in deep political trouble if it contracted out investigation and prosecution work to companies on the basis they can maximise profits. Witness the recent fuss about Wellington parking wardens although in fairness to the Council it does expect the contractor to exercise similar discretion as it would if it hired its own wardens. In parts of London, parking enforcement contractors who do ticketing, clamping and towing are alleged to act over zealously to maximise revenue and profits and the councils are only too happy to share the spoils. There are alleged instances of cars being towed away for being five minutes over time on parking meters – no doubt they do this when other towing work is slack.

    However I am not arguing against private prisons, in fact I remember a British con being interviewed on radio several years ago extolling the virtues of private prisons – the whole attitude of prison officers in private prisons was allegedly more conducive to calm and tranquility compared with the attitude of public sector officers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Malcolm, the former is hard to see, but the latter does not depend on the prison management as most rehab is done by outside groups and will probably remain under Corrections oversight. In that respect I would not expect much change. I would expect it to be more efficient and provide better facilities. Not sure how the NZ public would like that!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” However, my view that prosecutions should be by a government department is totally ideoligical! ”

    Thanks for the interesting comments/ information.

    Whatever the National Party believe, they were actually supported in the recent by many voters who (mistakenly) believe National does subscribe to an ideology, and that National subscribe to this ideology because they think it is right, and the best way to govern and administrate.

    I too agree that Prosecutions should be by a government department, but is there any harm in sub-contracting the actual prosecutors from the private sector (no matter what import the case) ? As long as the funding and administrative structure remains with government, where’s the problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dime (9,977 comments) says:

    good post DPF

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Peterwn, you seem to be agreeing with me- is that right? Your example is exactly the type of problem I mean.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    No problem, Red, if the admin and charging is done by the department and the advocacy is done by the bar. In fact, I would be all for it. I could then do both prosecution and defence, like they do in the UK, and are far better off for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pete George (23,591 comments) says:

    peterwn at 10:30 am: the whole attitude of prison officers in private prisons was allegedly more conducive to calm and tranquility compared with the attitude of public sector officers.

    Not sure that’s what the “get tough on crims” brigade want to hear.

    There has to be some sort of control over private management benefiting from keeping prisoners in as long as they can to maximise occupancy and revenue. I guess parole boards control early releases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Pete, all releases are either statutory or ordered by the parole board, so little chance of that happening. Worse, every day spent in custody unlawfully means extra cash to the prisinor when they sue. So there is no incentive at all for that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. GJ (329 comments) says:

    The previous private prison in Auckland was head and shoulders above any of our State prisons. Great to see that they may return. I am all for them. Just watch the unions start to scream!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    The previous private prison in Auckland was head and shoulders above any of our State prisons.

    Citation needed, with facts, or you’re making shit up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Bevan (3,924 comments) says:

    Free advice baiter: Most voters don’t follow Kiwiblog and don’t give a fcuk about political ideologies. This is why no-one listens to you, apart from other zealots on the internet.

    I didn’t realise that he was a contributer here….

    Free advice RRM: He is a commenter here, nothing more, nothing less. Although watching how he winds up you limp wristed lefties by just posting something is very entertaining.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    ^^^ Correct Bevan, I just don’t like fuck-nuttery to go unremarked upon, lest people start to mistake it for normal resaonable thought.

    And you don’t know a thing about my wrist and any limpness or otherwise. Just lies and smears, typical of the internet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    Thanks jinpy, I especially like this,

    The Hazards of
    Privatisation
    Analysts of prison privatisation
    around the world have identified the
    following possible hazards: occupancy
    rates and general incarceration
    policies may be driven by a private
    sector lobby intent on maximising
    imprisonment levels and thus the
    opportunity for profitable
    participation; the administration of
    punishment within the institutions may
    spill over into its allocation;
    accountability is likely to be
    inadequate in itself and less effective
    than within the public prison system;
    and dual standards may develop,
    leading to a quality private prison
    system for prisoners posing no major
    management problems and an
    increasingly depressed and run-down
    public prison system for
    outsiders¾ racial minorities, the
    mentally unstable, violent offenders,
    drug-dependent prisoners, lifers,
    protection cases, and those suffering
    from communicable …..

    And this,

    Dual standards
    Borallon is a ‘popular’ prison. The
    only submissions from prisoners
    which Kennedy received when he
    sought responses to his interim report
    were strongly supportive of
    privatisation. The canny expectations
    of experienced inmates have evidently
    been met, for there have been
    numerous applications to be
    transferred there.

    So if you’re mad, bad or sick you’ll hate privatisation but if you happen to be a career criminal you’ll love it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. GJ (329 comments) says:

    Cha: I have visited inmates in both sorts and there is absolutely no comparison in the efficiency, cleanliness and cost effectiveness. Also inmates were far more content (i.e. less trouble) in the private prison. Give me private prisons anyday!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. DrDr (114 comments) says:

    I guess the thing that concerns me the most is the expectation that the prisoner numbers are going to go up as significantly as the Minister has indicated. Surely putting more effort in to stopping the rise of prisoner numbers is warranted. Perhaps this could be and should be seen as a prime objective of the Whanau Ora programme. After all more than half of the prison population is Maori and I guess this trend is expected to continue if not get worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    [DPF]: it provides opportunities to have a lower escape rate[/quote]

    Disproved as BS, I’m afraid, by the record of Gitmo managers GEO during their stint running Auckland Central Remand:

    “in the five years GEO ran the prison the muster was only 280 and yet two prisoners escaped. In the five years since, under government management, there had been zero escapes despite the muster increasing to 417 prisoners.”

    All in this article linked to by Tumeke:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/news/3481639/Guantanamo-Bay-firm-puts-in-fresh-bid-to-run-Kiwi-prisons

    And it goes on: “the cost per inmate under GEO was $7072 more a year than what it was costing now under government control.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Angus (536 comments) says:

    RRM – “I just don’t like fuck-nuttery to go unremarked upon, lest people start to mistake it for normal resaonable (sic) thought.

    Agreed !

    http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/11/oh_my_god-2.html#comment-629728

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. cha (4,036 comments) says:

    GJ, so contented inmates with access to cell phones, weed, fry and a level of creature comfort that the general prison population can only dream about is a good reason to privatise prisons.

    Then perhaps there would be some truth to the ‘hang em high’ brigades claims that inmates are living the high life.
    Marvelous!.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. RRM (9,932 comments) says:

    I’m glad you brought that up Angus, I was quite proud of that post. DPF asked a straight question, I tried to provide a framework for an armchair analysis that didn’t involve “God” or “morality” or other abstract concepts like that.

    If the delicate sensitivities of righttards were upset, well, good!

    If you are too softcock to discuss uncomfortable issues when they arise (sic), I suggest you come round to my place tonight and you can supervise my little girl while she watches My Little Pony’s Super Sweet Christmas Slumber Party (Vol.7) or WTF ever it is she wants to get out from the video store. You will find this pleasantly unchallenging.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. malcolm (1,952 comments) says:

    Not only may it cost less, but more importantly it provides opportunities to have a lower escape rate, and a higher rehabilitation rate.

    I’m in favour of private prisons but I’m not sure how you arrive at the latter two points above.

    [DPF: The contracts incentivise them to minimise the former and maximise the latter]

    Sure, but a state-run prison isn’t without incentives to do a good job. Your point remains unsupported. If it was the case that only private companies could get stuff done, then we wouldn’t have had a functioning state-run prison service in the first place. Or an electricity grid, etc etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. jinpy (226 comments) says:

    Some interesting reading for sure cha, although it should be noted this is an american outfit. Really, the only important statistic with regard to success is recidivism.

    I can see why a company might want a contract for a private prison — just like a hostel except you can just about guarantee your occupancy and the state has a vested interest in your survival!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Chris2 (766 comments) says:

    It would be useful to know how much the Ministry of Justice saves (or does not save) by hiring private security companies as Court guards and prison van escorts, compared to when it was done by state employees.

    This information must be available and it would clarify the benefits or losses in this related area of the justice/prison system.

    I don’t have an ideological opinion on private sector prisons, but I do want whatever option is the cheapest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. freethinker (691 comments) says:

    Without a trial of private prison the public prison service has no benchmark to judge its performance against, so a private competitor will probably lead to an overall improvement in results and costs – a win win!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    The PDS provide better outcomes according to the PDS. I have never read an independent report that actually analyses which is “better”. Although one huge problem is that PDS “better cutcomes” equals less money spent equals more guilty pleas and short circuited defences. In other words compromising the right to a fair trial (then again the current system relies on the individual ethichs of lawyers to provide this because LSA sure as hell doesn’t resource it).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Labour … trapped in an ideological time-warp.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Private prisons can be brilliant or they can be appalling. It all depends on who’s contracted to run them.

    Acacia Prison in Western Australia used to be run by AIMS (now called G4S). In 2003 the Inspector of Custodial Services said the prison was “a cause for concern – not exactly ‘failing’ but showing distinct signs of vulnerability” and put it on their “informal ‘alert’ list” for close monitoring.

    This was undoubtedly the fault of G4S (just Google them for enough horror stories to keep you reading all day) but also due to slack monitoring by Corrections. The Inspector commented:

    “…a very senior official said to me shortly before our inspection that Acacia was by no means, in his view, the worst prison in the State – as if that were enough to justify its current performance. This tendency to flatten the criteria for assessing the private prison into the very same as those applied to public prisons is actually antithetical to the very purposes of privatisation – yet it had crept into the standard dialectic of senior Departmental personnel.

    As a result of lobbying by a wide range of community groups and pressure from the Inspector, the contract to manage Acacia was transferred to Serco. It is now a prison which, like the British example mentioned by peterwn above, prisoners request to be transferred to. “Getting to Acacia” is seen as a reward for exemplary behaviour and therefore, ironically, helps improve behaviour in state-run prisons.

    On a subsequent re-visit in 2008 the Inspector said:

    The performance of the prison had improved in numerous tangible ways. Indeed, as was stated at the Exit Debrief, Acacia was on the cusp of becoming a very good prison.

    So yes, private prisons can be very good indeed, but that’s entirely dependent on the calibre of the operator, since Corrections officials simply use poorly performing private prisons to excuse their own incompetence.

    What concerns me, however is that it is G4S with whom Judith Collins has been meeting. It is G4S who paid the way of influential Maori leaders to Australia to be wined, dined and lobbied. It seems it is G4S who are front runners to win any PPP deal in NZ. And that would be a disaster.

    [For anyone interested in the details, the Custodial Inspector's reports are here].

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Manolo (13,828 comments) says:

    “It is G4S who paid the way of influential Maori leaders to Australia to be wined, dined and lobbied.”

    Does that constitute koha? Although knowing the ethnicity of the prison population, it’s always a possibility.
    No way the kaumatuas would stoop that low,…yeah right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Oh no, Manolo, I’m sure certain “kaumatua” wouldn’t have their noses in the trough like that.

    It’s all to “see how it can benefit Maori” apparently. Well I mean it would be, when someone like Tuku Morgan, with his proud record of benefitting Maori when involved with Maori TV. Well he’s Maori… and he’ll benefit… so nothing to see here, obviously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Steve (4,564 comments) says:

    I have nothing to worry about, see I do not commit crimes, so I will not end up in Prison.
    If Private Prisons make it harder on the maggots of society then good. They may not want to come back.
    It’s not a bloody Hotel

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    DPF is always hot on others “ideology.” But he runs a (his words) right wing blog. Duh! Even pragmatism is an ideology.

    Anyway, I heard Bill English begin a statement by saying “We believe…(private prisons are better).” There is no better demonstration of ideology at play than those two words. Bill later went on to say that he was waiting for the figures to come in. That’s fair enough; no need for “We believe…”

    I was not aware of any horror stories emanating from the Auckland Remand Prison, so I’m open to partnerships, especially if Maori are involved – after all, our Corrections Department forecast locking up another 12-1400 Maori by 2009.

    But the main measure of efficiency should not be purely the cost of keeping people locked up. It should involve direct reward for successful rehabilitation, usually evidenced by the recidivism rate. If the correct parameters are in place, it shouldn’t matter whether it is a private or public prison. NZ Post a few years ago won the award for business of the year, which showed that the public/private stand divide is largely illusory, given the correct environment. The main advantage of private involvement should be that they put up the capital and take the risk – no government guaranteed bailout if it doesn’t pay off.

    But we will know we are in trouble if, as occurs in US, companies build prisons on spec (the locals see them approvingly as job opportunities) and wait for the government to provide the customers – in the US, mainly blacks and browns. Sound familiar?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. reid (16,491 comments) says:

    The real story isn’t prisons its PPP’s are back in favour.

    e.g. the private contract to build the school then lease it back to the Board, spoken of by English on Morning Report.

    Interestingly the Maori Party are in favour of the prison deal which associates them more with PPP in general and further from Liarbore. I imagine Whanua Ora will have a heavy flavour of PPP about it which is even better, provided the taxpayer’s funds in that case don’t go only to cuzzie bros, eh.

    This is clearly a strategic wedge that if used with discretion and deployed wisely could possibly force an unbridgeable gap and eventual permanent divorce between Maori and Liarbore. It is a double-edged sword however because all it takes are major multiple failures across a single sector or a series of less major failures across multiple sectors for the dream to come crashing down. If that happens it could drive Maori back into Liarbore’s hands.

    No doubt Liarbore right now is calling in all its favours generated over years of direct and exceedingly generous taxpayer funding and legislation designed specifically for the unions, to get them on side for the diabolical sabotage that will surely be attempted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Fascinating to see the Prison Officers association (SCREWS) spokesmen totally decry the very idea of a Private Security company running a prison.

    Certain of.

    a) More drugs
    b) More Escapes
    c) More corruption of Guards
    d) Less rehabilitation
    e) Motive for continued incarceration.

    Straight after was an article about some current State employed guards being done for a variety of crimes.

    You just couldn’t make it up!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Steve offers this enlightened comment:

    I have nothing to worry about, see I do not commit crimes, so I will not end up in Prison.
    If Private Prisons make it harder on the maggots of society then good. They may not want to come back.
    It’s not a bloody Hotel

    Righhhht… so if prisons fail to rehabilitate their inhabitants, who are then let out no better (and quite possibly worse) than when they went in, and harm even more people, you’ll still have nothing to worry about, eh Steve? Unless of course it’s you or your family that fall victim.

    But wait… I can hear your answer now: even more prisons, and longer, harsher sentences, right? And so on and so on. Tell you what, why don’t we just take this to it’s obvious conclusion? Move the inmates out, lock ourselves in. That’s about the only way existing prison systems are going to keep society safe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (13,923 comments) says:

    So what is the answer Rex? should we offer hugs and cuddles to these criminal scum?

    What is wrong with our society when decent folk start to care more about the criminals than they do about the victims?, a great number of the public want to see justice Rex, yes, they also want revenge.

    Build more prisons, fill the bloody things up as far as I am concerned, I am sick of seeing vermin released back onto the streets because the left think that is the best way to rehabilitate them, of course when the inevitable occurs and they commit another crime those same liberals are not there holding up their hands and saying sorry are they.

    One of the core jobs of every government is to keep its people safe, by letting low life back onto the street that government is failing its citizens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    BB – lawyers advocating shorter sentences = faster repeat business

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    I want to see justice big bruv. But no decent society can operate on the basis of revenge, or we’d dispense with the courts and prisons and have stonings and public executions… sound familiar?

    I’ve never said releasing someone was the best way to rehabilitate them. What concerns me is that, while in prison, few get the rehabilitation they need. In WA as many as 60% of prisoners assessed as needing to go through the Violenet Offender Treatment Program don’t get to do it because the prisons aren’t given enough resources to run enough courses. I’d wager much the same happens in NZ, or any prison system.

    Because politiains with great-sounding “get tough” rhetoric have put a hard liner in charge of the parole board, almost no one is getting parole… so certainly if you haven’t done anything to curb your violence you won’t get out on parole.

    That sounds great, right? Because I doubt you’d care that it’s not the prisoner’s fault they haven’t done the course (incidentally, I think if they refuse such a course they shouldn’t be considered for release even if they’ve served their full term).

    But what that means is this. A violent offender is sentenced to X years. They might be genuinely remorseful and want to be rehabilitated. They’re recommended for a violence course but don’t get it, through no fault of theirs. They’re refused parole, and so become angry at the system. They serve their full term and are released… they’ve done no course and, because they’re not on parole, have no supervision or support. And thus society is in danger.

    My solution is simple.

    1, Every offender is eligible for parole, provided their behaviour in prison meets a certain standard and provided they complete whatever rehabllitation is ordered.

    2. The prison is adequately funded to provide that rehabilitation. It becomes a sackable offence for the CEO of the Department of Corrections not to provide rehabilitation to any prisoner ordered to do it and willing to do so.

    3. A prisoner successfully completing rehabilitation is released on his earliest parole date. If he fails, his eligibility for parole is delayed but he can re-do the course(s).

    4. A prisoner refusing to do the courses is detained until such time as he has done so, regardless of the length of his original sentence.

    5. Parole starts from release. So if someone was sentenced to two years jail and two years parole but took an extra six months to pass his courses, his parole is still two years, not 18 months.

    6. The Department’s parole resources are also adequately funded and staffed. I know of two prisoners now who’ve been sent back to jail for missing appointments with their parole officer because they were working but the parole officer couldn’t fit them in outside work hours. Corrections advise to the prisoners was “quit your job”… when they wouldn’t they were arrested for breaches.

    That way everyone leaving jail has had the best possible effort made to rehabilitate them. Not because I want to hug and cuddle them, big bruv, but because properly rehabiliatted offenders are a far greater risk to the rest of us.

    I don’t see why you have a problem with that, other than that it doesn’t have that “revenge” element that you say some people want. But can you not see that that animalistic urge for revenge comes from exactly the same place as the motivation of some of our most sadistic thugs? It’s no more nor less than deriving a good feeling from seeing someone else suffer. And it sickens me, no matter how it manifests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Sorry, that should of course read ” properly rehabilitated offenders are a far lesser risk to the rest of us”.

    D’oh!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. krazykiwi (9,186 comments) says:

    Rex – Lots of thinking in there. So, recidivism… how would you propose to deal with that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Krazykiwi – recidivism is, in most but not all cases, like first time crime. It has different drivers and needs to be dealt with in different ways.

    For some people, confronting them with the effects of their actions – coming face to face with victims (not their own victims, unless those people wish to participate) can deter some violent offenders if their violence comes from an inability to control themselves. It won’t work if the motive is sadism (but it’s a really effective way to tell if someone is a sociopath – observe their lack of empathy).

    Getting recidivist DUI offenders to work in an A&E can work for some, not others. And so on.

    Without writing yet another lengthy comment, in a nutshell – a tailored strategy, which for some offenders might be hard labour, longer sentences etc. But one size doe not fit all and therefore neither the “lefty wet bus ticket” nor the “righty minimum sentences, longer sentences” brigades have the answer. Nor will they ever.

    In fact it’s private prison operators, motivated by… *gasp*… money, who’ve done a lot of research into what works for some types of offenders and doesn’t for others. I hope the right operators get to set up in NZ, because we’ll be able to learn a lot from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Steve said “I have nothing to worry about, see I do not commit crimes, so I will not end up in Prison.”

    So thought Arthur Allen Thomas, Aaron Farmer, Tania Vini, Macushla Fuataha, and Lucy Akatere, while David Dougherty also thought that because he was, you know, innocent, he might not go either.

    Innocence is no bar to imprisonment, not in any country in the world.

    Anyway, what I really want to know is from Rex: Do the private prisons in Oz do their own rehab programmes, or are they still state operated?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote