Greens against fewer prison escapes

October 15th, 2011 at 8:41 am by David Farrar

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Green Party corrections spokesman David Clendon said the changes were unacceptable.

“A private manager can be fined if they allow escapes. In that context they are going to be very risk averse and use the high classification rather than the lower one.”

Oh dear because there will be incentives to have fewer escapes, then we may have fewer escapes because the prison managers will be more risk averse.

How awful!

Tags: ,

35 Responses to “Greens against fewer prison escapes”

  1. tvb (3,938 comments) says:

    Except high classifications are much more costly to guard and cost the prison more. Do the Greens think of that. I suppose they will say there will be MORE escapes because the private prison will be cutting corners on guards. That is alongside closing down all coastal shipping and closing the Mauri platform and all off-shore drilling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    You spin things right round, baby
    right round like a record, baby
    Right round round round
    - Applogies to Dead or Alive.

    That, as you well know, is not the thrust of the Greens position. It is their belief that because private prison managers will be more risk averse, fewer prisoners will be permitted to work outside the prison as part of their pre-release programme.

    National love locking people up, they have no thought for reintegration once a sentence is served.

    But keep spinning, as soon as the All Blacks fold like an origami stork, Key will be on the back foot and Donkey Brash will buy the party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Come on Farrar, that headline is pure crap. Soon you’ll be out on the hustings with a short skirt an pom poms.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    Tinkerbell?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. CharlieBrown (787 comments) says:

    If those peaceniks weren’t against proper justice then prison wouldn’t be so expensive. Prison should be about Protecting society, punnishment then rehabilitation last. That way you can lock someone in prison, feed them ultra cheap food, give them the most basic of living conditions, and make their time in there a living hell. But nooooooooooo, the greens, labour and co want prison to cost $100000 a year per prisoner so they can “rehabilitate” hardened offenders that ultimately come out and usually offend again.

    Obviously for lighter first time offenders we can try to rehabilitate them, but chances are if the prisoner is before the court more than once for more than a couple of dishonest or violent crimes then they deserve HARD time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. freedom101 (439 comments) says:

    I read the Green Party release more positively in that they appeared to be recognising that if you impose a real penalty in the case of a prison escape then there are likely to be fewer escapes.

    The state system generally lacks sanctions for poor performance. Let’s see where else this principle could apply, incentivising or penalising behaviour:
    - schools for truancy
    - welfare providers for how long people are on a benefit

    Then there are sanctions which would be consumer-driven if state monopolies were opened to competition:
    - school choice – gives parents the right to take their children out of a poorly performing school
    - open up council consenting to competitive providers – reduce silly interpretation of rules and improve timeliness of processing

    There must be lots of other examples.

    If the Greens are finally realising that cause and effect, accountability and consumer choice are all relevant for the delivery of government services then that’s great! If this is the case then maybe ACT and the Greens can merge!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Elaycee (4,066 comments) says:

    “If this is the case then maybe ACT and the Greens can merge!”

    Doubt it. Even ACT has standards. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. asterisk.4 (13 comments) says:

    I’m surprised you think this is worth a mention considering this major, illiberal change.
    http://pundit.co.nz/content/is-this-really-how-we-have-to-remember-simon-power
    How would you frame that one? Power against less prisoner abuse? Power against justice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    What pisses me off is that the counterfactual is usually never expressly discussed. It is not sufficient to point to problems in private prisons as an argument against them. You have to compare that performance to what the state does. And most analyses show the state is worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ben (2,385 comments) says:

    God you spout nonsense MNIJ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    Are you a multifaceted libertarian?

    One measure of society is how fairly it treats its…:

    a) Prisoners
    b) Billionaires
    c) Poor
    d) Movie Stars
    e) Animals
    f) Eccentrics
    g) Environment
    h) Children
    i) Minority cultures
    J) Sick
    k) Old
    l) Middle class

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Why does anybody care about the welfare of criminals?

    Are the left that desperate for votes?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. awb (298 comments) says:

    BB- Because as a society you have two choices. 1 is to rehabilitate prisoners, and the other is to decide that prisoners cannot be rehabilitated and must be locked up for pretty much the remainder of their life, as you can’t release someone who might be a danger to society. Rehab in the long run is actually cheaper.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    awb

    I don’t care if it costs more to keep a William Bell or a Graeme Burton in prision. Lock the bastards up for life (or better still shoot the pricks).

    When will we learn that you can’t rehabilitate scum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    big bruv says:- “Why does anybody care about the welfare of criminals?”

    1) They breed.
    2) They are products of society. They are therefore our responsibility.
    3) If you want justice for yourself, then it follows that you want justice for them.
    4) They were born innocent, until some other victim turned perp. fucked them over.

    I know you don’t like me bruv, so perhaps you can ignore that for the moment and critique my argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MyNameIsJack (2,415 comments) says:

    BB, you’ve proven that over and over again.

    Fat arsed, burger slurping, overweight and under mannered taxi drivers are beyond all redemption.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. dion (95 comments) says:

    My understanding is that the prison contractor is also targeted on their levels of recidivism – not just on number of escapes. If a focus on rehabilitation is as effective as the left say it is, then we won’t have a problem, will we?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. reid (15,524 comments) says:

    The state system generally lacks sanctions for poor performance.

    Does anyone know if the prison is incentivised for reducing recidivism and/or penalised if it is increased, or is the company only in charge of the remand prison so it doesn’t apply?

    Regardless, if you’re going to do it (incentivise or penalise), that’s where you should do it. Escapes are a given, they happen so rarely why focus on those as if they make a great deal of difference. What I mean is yes they are expensive when they occur but they hardly ever happen. Also if you designed a prison as if every prisoner was like this Houdini guy then obviously you’ll over-engineer it for no purpose, because most prisoners aren’t Houdinis, are they.

    My point really is, as usual, the Gweens bleat on about the wrong fucking thing, again. They bleat on about something that doesn’t matter and won’t improve the lot of the average prisoner, whereas if they took the opportunity to bleat on about incentivising to reduce recidivism, they would be talking about something that would make a difference plus is something they proclaim to stand for – helping the poor and the downtrodden. But no.

    Update: Thanks dion, that’s good to know. How come the Gweens didn’t know?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. nasska (9,489 comments) says:

    Mostly agree with BB on this one (apart from the capital punishment aspect). Rehab is worth a try on younger offenders who may have just gone off the rails but by the time these crims are set on their ways the onus should shift to protecting society against their almost certain recidivism. To this end ‘three strikes’ will eventually work.

    The socialists usually trot out the cost factor conveniently forgetting that crime, especially violent crime, has a high cost both in terms of dollars & the effect on the victims. They ignore the unarguable fact that an imprisoned offender is not reoffending.

    It is one of those cases where society is better off by saying ‘to hell with the cost’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. big bruv (12,327 comments) says:

    Scott Chris

    ” I know you don’t like me bruv, so perhaps you can ignore that for the moment and critique my argument.”

    Oh please!, I can assure you that I do not give you even a passing thought. Don’t flatter yourself.

    Now, for your ‘argument’

    “1) They breed.”

    All the more reason to keep them locked up, they cannot breed while they are banged up.

    “2) They are products of society. They are therefore our responsibility.”

    Bullshit they are, the minute they chose to break the law they put themselves outside the protection of any decent society, the only responsibility we have is to keep them off the streets and keep the rest of the population safe from them.

    “3) If you want justice for yourself, then it follows that you want justice for them.”

    Who says that “it follows”?, the only justice I want for them is to have them locked up.

    “4) They were born innocent, until some other victim turned perp. fucked them over.”

    Again this is pure bullshit and shows that you have no bloody idea. Nobody is forced to become a criminal, it is always a matter of choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. leftyliberal (601 comments) says:

    What David Clendon actually said (according to the article at least) was that, because private managers are more likely to reclassify medium and low risk prisoners as high risk, in order to ensure they don’t get penalised should one of them escape, those prisoners would not be able to take part in work programmes or programmes such as Whare Oranga Ake. He went on to say that he was concerned that searches (which can now include “visually examined” body cavities and searches “using instruments”) can now be done without managerial approval, and thus might be used as a threat or as punishment in the future.

    These seem like reasonable things to be concerned about. There may well be safe-guards in place to ensure that the new powers aren’t abused, but there’s certainly no need to mischaracterise Clendon’s comments quite in the way DPF has managed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Scott Chris (5,675 comments) says:

    big bruv says:- “Who says that “it follows”?, the only justice I want for them is to have them locked up.”

    I say ‘it follows’ for this logical reason.

    The foundation of society is built on the idea of a many self-interested people all wanting what is good for them, having to co-exist somehow for the greatest individual good. (based on simple ideas of morality)

    Therefore it impossible to take into consideration only one (ie yours or mine) point of view.

    May turn out that killing anyone who commits a violent offense, and anyone over the age of 60, and anyone below a certain IQ level and anyone with a disability would create the most efficient society.

    But would you want to live in it? Makes more sense to me to try to fix our problems, rather than just sweep them under the carpet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Paulus (2,293 comments) says:

    Who is David Clendon ? Never heard if him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    Time we combined best Green party principles with good old right wing debt reduction and composted the prisoners.

    A win-win situation as a previous PM was wont to say. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. noskire (797 comments) says:

    awb (81) Says:
    October 15th, 2011 at 11:55 am

    BB- Because as a society you have two choices. 1 is to rehabilitate prisoners, and the other is to decide that prisoners cannot be rehabilitated and must be locked up for pretty much the remainder of their life, as you can’t release someone who might be a danger to society. Rehab in the long run is actually cheaper.

    I’d been interested to see if that is just wishful thinking or if there is any substance to your comment awb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. noskire (797 comments) says:

    Lock ‘em up and throw away the key….

    From the Sensible Senticing Trust WebSite http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/Articles/lock.htm

    However, I think Corrections have recently put the average cost of housing a prisoner at about $90 000 PA.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. reid (15,524 comments) says:

    However, I think Corrections have recently put the average cost of housing a prisoner at about $90 000 PA.

    I would be prepared to pay double that if every prisoner for that extra $90 000 received compulsory education and was required to show results for it, lest they don’t qualify for parole.

    That would allow us to assign a single teacher to every prisoner and tailor their educational level with the right person.

    It’s a lot but for $90,000 you could get people who weren’t just educators in academics but also in how to get themselves out of their space of whatever that is: sense of self-entitlement, sense of anger perhaps rage, sense of helplessness, whatever it was. And imagine if a prisoner received that from day one of every prisoner’s sentence.

    Seems to me that would be money well spent over the longer run.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Johnboy (13,342 comments) says:

    I’d be happier to pay a one off 20c for a 9mm parabellum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. reid (15,524 comments) says:

    That’s why you weren’t with us when the Rapture happened, Johnboy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. awb (298 comments) says:

    Noskire – Prison is universally regarded as a very expensive, and does nothing to address why people get into a life of crime. Furthermore, under the current model, a young man goes into prison and comes out equipped with the skills to make a career out of illegal activities. I’m not sure about you but I feel we are missing a trick as a society by spending so much money to send people to the University of Crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Murray (8,835 comments) says:

    Apprently its bleeding heart liberal day here at Kiwiblog where the usual suspects think restating an aserion thats all ready been proven flawed is a compelling argument.

    Spiteful lefties, do they never get tired of being wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Risk averse? Christ what morons. The whole point of prisons is to avert risk of these scumbags running amok . I expect my tax dollars to be paying for managers to be risk reverse as fuck!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. noskire (797 comments) says:

    awb, what universe would that be? – it’s not the job of a prison to address why offenders are there, it’s to punish them for their crime and protect the rest of us from them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. awb (298 comments) says:

    Noskire – You are absolutely right, it isn’t the job of prisons to address why offenders are in prison, that is the job of politicians, who in their mad scramble to appear toughest on crime are totally failing to address the causes of crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RF (1,128 comments) says:

    I guess it depends on if you read about crime and say tut tut prior to turning to the sports section or have been a victim of crime and experienced absolute terror that changes ones life forever.

    Some offenders should never to released back into society.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.