escalating violence in our community Become a member of the Sensible Sentencing Trust

Mouseover links or blue arrows above for full page descriptions

Summary; Europe fact finding trip

London, Amsterdam and Helsinki with Minister of Corrections

Introduction:

The Sensible Sentencing Trust has played a pivotal role in exposing the horrific nature and consequences of violent crime in New Zealand today. The increasing public awareness and debate has motivated considerable political interest. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is unashamedly Victim focused, but to reduce the number of Victims we need to ultimately reduce the level of offending. In our opinion any review that comes out of this debate needs to be broad enough to cover the break down in parenting / education structure that has contributed to so many young people being involved in our criminal justice system. This review must also encompass the role of Victims in the New Zealand Justice System.

Purpose :
The fact-finding trip was instigated by the Minister of Corrections to research options for reducing the level of criminal offending and ultimately the prison populations. Due to the short duration of the trip, research opportunities were limited to mainly meeting officials and visiting prisons in the London, Amsterdam and Helsinki regions.

Summary :
My intended summary has altered somewhat as a result of events over recent days with a number of senior police breaking ranks and going public to express extreme concern at the level and nature of crime in recent years and what they believe to be systemic failures in the legal system that has contributed to the increasing level of crime / prison population.

A number of police have also contacted the Sensible Sentencing Trust to express similar concerns, it is our firm belief that any proposed review of the Corrections system must be broadened to include a review of police concerns and more importantly the inherent problems that have resulted in so many young people offending.

Any support the Sensible Sentencing Trust is to offer is conditional on any review being broad enough to cover the break down in society, i.e. the root-causes that have contributed to so many young people being involved in our criminal justice system. This review must encompass the function and responsibilities of parents and education, and also the role of Victims in the New Zealand Justice System.

While the fact-finding trip was very educational and informative we need to be extremely careful that any enthusiasm is balanced with a broad over-view of the different countries and cultures involved.

The offender mix here is quite different to that in Finland and the Netherlands, the statistics show that we have nearly double the assault rate of Finland and three times that of the Netherlands. We also have more than double the rape rate of these countries

The half-open and fully open prisoner reintegration schemes in European countries seem to be reducing the level of recidivism, (20% within two years compared to our 52%) and are certainly worthy of further consideration here, but it would be extremely dangerous to think this may be a quick-fix for New Zealand’s problems. If the Government is serious about this review all options will need to be considered even if they are not in line with current government policy, and that will mean considering private enterprise being involved in the prison / corrections system in New Zealand. All new prisons in Britain (11 out of 151) are now financed, built and managed by consortiums of banks and various private enterprises with 25 year contracts.

We believe New Zealand is uniquely positioned to lead the world as all countries struggle to come to terms with the burden of rising inmate numbers.

A sensible path to reducing prison numbers :

A reversal of New Zealand’s current rights based offender centered legal system that takes any concept of responsibility and accountability away from offenders.

Introduction of a responsibility based, victim centered justice system that focuses on placing the responsibility on the offender from the first crime.

Introduction of a user-pays scheme in prisons whereas all offenders are required to work for their keep and learn skills for their eventual reintegration.

That the alternative sentence of home-detention or community service only be considered where the offender has completed the following :

• -->     Reimbursement to the Victim
• -->     Paid all associated costs, prosecution, solicitors Courts etc.
  (This may mean the offender needs to find a family member or sponsor to cover the above costs)

The introduction of a more lenient sentencing regime would need to recognise the fact that there will always be a number of hard-core recidivist offenders; prison is the only option for this category of criminal. If we are to have a truly effective criminal justice system it is essential that the victims of these criminals are given priority consideration. This would include the following:

• Life to mean Life for premeditated and/or aggravated Murder
• End Parole and introduce supervision at end of Judge given sentences for all recidivist violent offenders and sex offenders.
• Compulsory DNA testing for all criminal convictions.
• A true restitution and reparation scheme for Victims of crime.
• Provide secure confinement for diagnosed paranoid psychopaths.
• Consultation with Judges, Police and Non-Government agencies

New Zealand has become the flag-ship for the user-pays no-subsidies concept that is being promoted with all our trading partners in the agricultural industry; we believe a unique opportunity exists for this country to operate a similar system in the criminal justice arena.

Rehabilitation and Reintegration :

As was evidenced in the Dominion 16/2/06 rehabilitation and reintegration is a figment of the imagination of a bygone era. The Sensible Sentencing Trust is firmly of the belief that responsibility and reparation would be far more effective tools in reducing crime. The prison systems of the countries we visited are now beginning to put the responsibility for crime back on the perpetrator by a system of individual contracts that hold offenders accountable and responsible for their actions.

Offenders are held responsible for any breaches of contract by a graduating scale of punishment starting at withdrawal of privileges and culminating in return to the normal harsher prison system.

When we talk about rehabilitation and reintegration in New Zealand we are essentially referring to the offender, the criminal, if we are serious about reducing the level of New Zealand’s prison population we need to focus on rehabilitation of the victim and putting the responsibility on the offender.

This is now being demonstrated in New South Wales where a Restitution Board pays the victim if the offender is unable to, and then ensures offenders pay reparation back. This is proving to be successful in reducing offending.

Victim representation and Compensation :

Once again considerable resources are being put into the rehabilitation of offenders, the Sensible Sentencing Trust believes this money should be put into the rehabilitation of Victims which must ultimately financed by the perpetrators themselves.

We feel there are enough offender based organisations and would encourage the appointment of a dedicated spokesperson for Victims or ultimately a Minister of Victims to advocate for and ensure the demands and needs of victims are adequately cared for.

The Sensible Sentencing Trust looks forward to working with the Government to develop new initiatives to reduce crime and ensure better treatment for victims of crime

In my opinion following are the applicable points taken from various meetings that I can see as being relevant to New Zealand's Prison System.

Comparable prison populations in 2004

• New Zealand :               171 inmates per 100,000 of population
• Great Britain& Wales : 141
• Netherlands :                   98
• Finland :                           71

LONDON :

International Centre for Prison Studies ( ICPS)

The role of the centre is to accumulate various data on prisons and correctional system throughout the world using human rights standards as their measuring criteria.

1. “The mystique surrounding prisons and corrections is created by those involved in the system, we urge the Minister to hold on to the more simple values”.
2. ICPS had used NZ as an example of "what not to do" when advising Scotland recently.
3. Prisons consumed a large amount of the justice vote and should not be used as a means of training and re-educating the ‘"waifs and strays" of society.
4. In the USA the reintegration of prisoners was the responsibility of the Department of Labour who researched what skills were required and engaged with private sector employers to offer employment opportunities through various incentive schemes.
5. The danger of creating alternative sentences was that it placed an increased burden on communities and the advantages were not readily displayed or measurable.
6. Since 1995 all new prisons are privately financed and managed (11 out of 151) by a consortium of Banks and private enterprise with 25 year contracts and large financial penalties built in for any breaches of contract, including escapes and not meeting guidelines.
7. Britain has a Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure consistency in sentences.
8. The Age of Criminal responsibility is ten.
9. Prime Minister Blair has introduced an anti-social behaviour order which eliminates a lot of unnecessary Court work and reinstalled values.
10. New York has introduced the "Centre for Court Innovation" administered by a local identity or community Judge as a mean of youth offender management.

LATCHMERE PRISON (London)

Part way through the offender's prison sentence the parole board can refer offenders to Latchmere prison which is solely focused on reintegration based on a two stage reintegration program.

I like this concept as it puts the responsibility back on the offender by a system of contracts.

The half-open/ Open Prison terminology would be greeted with suspicion and derision from the New Zealand public, while the concept may be worthy of further consideration serious thought needs to be given to the terminology.

With this concept there are three stages to release. All offenders must start at the closed Prison

Stage 1 : Closed Prison

Stage 2 : A half-open prison system with offenders signing personal-responsibility contracts and being required to work and pay for their keep.

All offenders work within the prison confines doing work which is mainly contracted to outside industry. Offenders start to learn work ethics by being expected to turn up to work on time and doing the normal day to day house-keeping. They are paid a minimum wage and are required to pay for all necessities and luxuries, thus learning everyday financial skills.

Offenders are allowed one weekend home per month. Any breaches of their contract meet with punishment varying from not being eligible for weekend leave to returning to the main prison system.

Stage 3: Open Prison system also requires the signing of a personal-responsibility contract with more rigid conditions but offenders are allowed home every weekend.

All offenders are expected to find a sponsor who will give them work in the outside community. The prison management offers help if necessary. Offenders return to the prison to eat and sleep.

Discipline is stringent with the rules clearly set in the personal-responsibility contract with penalties ranging from withdrawal of privileges to being sent back to the main prison system without going through the court system again..

Latchmere Prison :
All inmates are free to roam within the Prison confines but are expected to develop good work and hygiene skills. The re-offending rate from Latchmere is 20% within two years where as the re-offending rate from the normal prison system is 52% within the same time frame.

Amsterdam: Netherlands :

The Dutch Justice System is inquisitorial (judge only) and the prison system is also a combination of closed/open prisons with a current inmate population of 13,000 (98 per 100,000) with only a small percentage in the open prisons system. Youths between 12-18 are handled separately at both trial and corrections. Annually almost 50,000 people enter and leave the Dutch prison establishments. Due to an increasing Prison population a waiting list system is used where offenders queue for a prison placement and report when called upon.

Until recently the standard was one prisoner per cell but the prison population has increased by 40% since 1997 and so double-bunking is now the norm with the prison population projected to increase to over 19,000 inmates by 2008 with corresponding prison construction.

The Dutch Corrections Department also use the same system as Latchmere with signed offender contracts. A typical 4 year sentence is served by;

• 1 Year in the closed prison system
• 6 months in half-open prison system
• 6 months in the open prison system

The last two years of sentence is served on parole out in the community.

Within 2 years 30% are back in prison and within 5 years 70% are back behind bars.

Helsinki : Finland :

In the 1950’s and 60’s Finland undertook a program of "de-carceration" which was essentially a program of more lenient sanctions that reduced prison sentences and directed Judges to use alternative sentences, such as conditional imprisonment (suspended sentences). The prison population decreased from a high of 187 per 100,000 to a low of 55 per 100,000 in the year 2000. There has been a steady increase since, to today's figures of 71 per 100,000.

Finland is largely a monocultural society whereas ours is multicultural. Like it or not this does have some implications for offending rates, unless those governing such multicultural societies take a hard line to enforce common values and the Rule of Law.

Finland and the Netherlands are both wealthier societies than New Zealand.
GDP per capita for NZ   - $ 24,100
GDP per capita for Netherlands - $ 30,500
GDP per capita for Finland -  $ 30,300 
from The CIA World Factbook

Personally talking to Police in Helsinki the general opinion seems to be that the adoption of a more lenient regime has resulted in a "crime pays" mentality and the resulting increase in crime/ prison population with a trend towards increasing violent crime.

New Zealand :

As mentioned the offender mix here is quite different to Finland, whereas the majority of their crimes are petty crimes, looking at the prisoners jailed here for crimes whose sentences averaged 8 months or less in 2003.

Driving with excess alcohol – 937	Breach of sentences - 403
Other driving offences - 687	Breach of protection orders - 138
Minor property offences - 729	Others - 318
Assault - 638	Total 3850

A good proportion of these will be repeat offenders, and those who have committed assault, breached protection orders or previous sentences should not be considered for community sentences.

It may be feasible to release a third of Finish or Dutch prisoners to serve their sentences in the community, however to do so here would be excessively optimistic and fly in the face of long-standing public opinion.

That said, intensive alcohol and drug treatment programmes for certain offenders (such as first time drink drivers) rather than short prison sentences do make sense and will be accepted by the public if it is clearly explained and firm limits set.

Review of private prisons :

The Sensible Sentencing Trust considers the move to ban private prison services in New Zealand runs counter to the international evidence that private prisons provide both lower costs and better service overall. There are a number of studies comparing public to private prisons. One review of the evidence concludes that "virtually all of the studies find private prison costs to be lower … on average between 5 and 15%". This would represent a huge saving to the New Zealand tax-payer.

The UK National Audit Office (NAO), in a recent comprehensive assessment of the operational performance of private prisons, found that opening up the publicly managed prisons to competition in the United Kingdom has encouraged the publicly managed prisons to operate better.

A recent US study on the effect of private prisons on public prisons drew similar conclusions. The study noted that "benefits (from competition) can arise from a learning effect on public prisons, an incentive effect for public prisons to operate efficiently and a "yardstick" or "benchmark" effect that allows public prisons to compare themselves against a standard".

As pointed out by the ICPS in London the link between private prisons and the private sector job-providers means that contractual arrangements can be developed to ensure appropriate skills are being taught to meet sector demand. It was also pointed out that a lot of the criticism surrounding prisoners taking private-sector jobs is eliminated.

With the rapid increase of the prison muster in New Zealand the cost of prison services is growing rapidly, with total public expenditure on corrections services having doubled over the last seven years. With a number of new prisons already built and others planned to be built to meet the projected growth in offender numbers to 2008, the capital costs and ongoing operating costs are considerable. The Sensible Sentencing Trust believes it is essential that the Labour Government review its policy on private prisons.

To shelter the public prison service from competition is contrary to the available evidence and is likely to mean New Zealand settles for a second-best service, to the detriment of inmates and the community.