Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Moreover, New Zeal<strong>and</strong>‟s use of prison is costly – the 2010/11 Corrections<br />
estimated spending includes $767.283mn on custodial services for sentenced<br />
<strong>and</strong> rem<strong>and</strong> prisoners, as well as private prison contract management (The<br />
Treasury, 2010). This sum, that excludes spending on programmes,<br />
education, <strong>and</strong> the like, is significant. While the most serious offenders will<br />
continue to need to be securely detained, many offenders would be better<br />
served within community environments in which spending is directed to local<br />
social services.<br />
These perspectives have gained traction elsewhere. For instance, the House<br />
of Commons Justice Committee (2010) has recently called for reform in the<br />
way in which imprisonment is undertaken in Britain. Among other things, the<br />
Committee concluded that:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Prisons</strong> are economically unsustainable;<br />
<strong>Prisons</strong> are generally ineffective in reducing crime or reforming<br />
offenders – this is especially the case during periods of overcrowding;<br />
<strong>Prisons</strong> should be reserved for the most serious criminals;<br />
Most offenders can be managed more coherently in the community.<br />
The Committee questioned the whole nature of punishment practices.<br />
Instead, they noted that „if other purposes, including reform <strong>and</strong> rehabilitation<br />
<strong>and</strong> reparation to victims, were given higher priority, then we believe<br />
sentencing could make a much more significant contribution to reducing reoffending<br />
<strong>and</strong> to improving the safety of communities‟ (ibid:11).<br />
With this in mind, the Committee called for the introduction of a „justice<br />
reinvestment‟ model (cf Tucker <strong>and</strong> Cadora, 2003) in which government funds<br />
are directed in a more substantive way to community provisions. Arguing that<br />
prison populations could be safely cut to two-thirds of the current level, the<br />
Committee recommended that correctional savings should be redirected to<br />
probation <strong>and</strong> crime reduction programmes in the community; this will include<br />
health, education, social welfare <strong>and</strong> criminal justice initiatives for established<br />
<strong>and</strong> „at risk‟ offenders. Particular focus should be given to preventative<br />
services that work with former offenders, those with drug <strong>and</strong> alcohol<br />
problems; those with mental health problems; <strong>and</strong> young people who have<br />
come into contact with criminal justice agencies. The Committee report, the<br />
result of sustained work by 14 cross-party MPs (<strong>and</strong> a whole host of<br />
practitioner <strong>and</strong> academic contributors), calls for a crucial shift in thinking<br />
about punishment practices, specifically to reduce the use of custody as a<br />
sanction.<br />
These issues are certainly worthy of further action in a local context, so that<br />
we might begin to substantively address the questions: „What should we<br />
expect of our prisons?‟ <strong>and</strong> „What do we actually want to achieve in our<br />
responses to offenders?‟. After all, a country‟s use <strong>and</strong> means of<br />
imprisonment is a matter of choice <strong>and</strong>, consequently, these features of New<br />
Zeal<strong>and</strong> society can be changed.<br />
122