Actually, in some countries the job of your parole officer includes helping you find a job on release and then checking you remain in it, with the threat of return to prison hanging over your head if you walk out or are sacked for unreasonable behaviour. If NZ is anything like Australia, the job of a probation officer is to have you come to them periodically so they can ask “committed any crime? Taken any drugs?”, tick the “no” boxes and make your next appointment.

Not criticising the people – there’s barely enough of them to do even that – but the system that thinks that’s acceptable.

But they are separate issues. It is not the job of the Corrections Ministry to employ people on release, and the employment prospects one way or another on release, are not a reason for not supplying the fishing rod. It sounds like our being in search of reasons not to go forwards. Governments are quite good at this sort of logic, and finding reasons NOT to do things.

Let’s not spoil the Corrections good intentions, by generalisations about what might or might not happen after a prisoner is released. We could of course have a separate Kiwiblog thread on post-release employment prospects, but it is a separate issue, one on which today’s thread does not depend.

We can’t keep working on the basis that we can’t have a chicken without first having an egg, and we can’t have an egg without first having a chicken. We ought to be able to start somewhere.

[Sorry for the mixed metaphors.]

Trying to sell them the notion that “work” in prison will somehow be good for them is just a politicians wet dream.

I disagree. Every human is rational. Make ‘work’ optional, and tie the resulting virtual income to improved lifestyle inside the clink (eg 100 Crimodollars = large screen rental for a month) and the result would be educational. If we reward effort and enterprise, and there’s usually a few years for this to sink in, there just may be an improved outcome on release.

Of course there needs to a counterbalance: Choosing to not work/save/plan would result in bare cells and very basic food, options etc. The objective would be to show that choices have unavoidable consequences – a concept that could be quite foreign to many guests of the crown.

You deduced a random pile of shit about Maori in prison, their work ethic and sense of entitlement to factually show your classic cracka ass bent .

The prison system may ” keep the public safe from dangerous criminals”, but I don’t see much “punish those who have seriously or repeatedly broken the law” going on.

What reasonable motive would you have for wanting to punish more severely?

Research has shown that increasing the severity of a punishment does not have much effect on crime, while increasing the certainty of punishment does have a deterrent effect.

It would be like mining without the hysterical greenie reactionism (although of course there would be complaints about the injury rate and exposure to toxins).

A tonne of mixed plastics can be transformed into about 900 litres of diesel through cracking at a cost of about 30c per litre, so there would be all sorts of ways to make a return on it and there are all sorts of goodies in electronics and cars.

By and large, New Zealand’s penal system does the first two reasonably well”

The prison system may ” keep the public safe from dangerous criminals”, but I don’t see much “punish those who have seriously or repeatedly broken the law” going on. The public’s view is that many people see prison as a home away from home.

And, unfortunately, the justice system as a whole doesn’t seem very good at “keep the public safe from dangerous criminals” with bail and parole at the drop of a hat, generally short sentences and no real penalty for recidivism.

Note the the debate (ongoing) around the three strikes legislation. Hmm. Will that law survive to lunchtime after 2014? I think not.

In addition to the attitudinal issues OTGO mentions there are also systemic issues – the most significant being that over 7% of the non-prisoner population are also seeking work. And most employers will understandably preference those without a criminal record. So to employ prisoners we need to create enough jobs to take the employable unemployed (i.e. the majority) and then still more jobs for prisoners.

That’s no reason not to train prisoners and make them work; we should do that anyway. But unless there’s intensive post-release support, including housing for those that need it and work for all (and remaining in the job provided to you on release, or a better one you’ve found yourself, is part of your parole conditions) we’re addressing only one aspect of a much larger issue, and therefore expecting it to create any real and lasting change is unrealistic.

The wardens just “light a bonfire under their backsides” (metaphorically speaking). “You will do this work, or else….” Privileges can easily be withdrawn, that kind of thing.

I’m not saying that the proposed scheme will be wildly successful, but I’m sure that there are some examples “out there” of working inmates being successful.