Human Rights and Prisons - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

the context of the prison, as elsewhere, a focus on practice (and not just
policy) is vital.
The Context of Managerialism
At the same time, it also appears that the Correctional shift towards a remit of
efficiency, security and risk-management, may well have a bearing on the
operational attainment of rights. Many Western governments have realigned
themselves to models of managerialism. Managerialism simply refers to the
privileging of bureaucratic and managerial principles within governmental
agencies, such as Corrections (Coyle, 2007). On one level, it is an enticing
idea as it promotes innovation, autonomy, quality standards, flexibility and
performance (while meeting consumer needs); it places an emphasis on
„strategies, mission statements, visions and goals‟ (Scott, 2007:58).
Yet, academics have also argued that managerialism challenges the
implementation of rights standards within prisons. The remit of managerialism
– to embed „performance cultures‟; to prioritise cost-effectiveness and value
for money; to audit and measure effectiveness and efficiency; to „contract-out‟
prison services and management; to approach the management of prisoners
as a technical challenge; or, to rationalise the policy process around riskmanagement
– can result in negative consequences (Coyle, 2007; Garland,
1990; Scott, 2007). Claims for efficiency can „bring in its wake moral
indifference‟ (Liebling, 2008b:71) in which prisoners are no longer addressed
as moral, economic, social or psychological beings but are depicted as an
„unruly risk group‟ that must be identified, classified, incapacitated and riskmanaged
at low cost (ibid; Feeley and Simon, 1992).
Internationally, much has been written about the movement of criminal justice
systems along risk-management lines. Ericson (2007) highlights how
governments and criminal justice actors have increasingly presented the
notion that any risks of crime, or harm, can be eradicated by more effective
punishment practices. As a consequence, an appetite for security „is
legitimated and given much freer rein‟ (Loader, 2009:247) to ensure that „they‟
who risk or threaten „our‟ lives are securely managed (cf Pratt, 1997). At the
same time, the chimera of a risk-free life can mean that the public, and
organisations, become less concerned about the impact of securitisation on
those who „receive‟ it – such that longer sentences and increased prisoner
restrictions are readily accepted. This can be dovetailed with a reluctance to
articulate other values that are mistakenly thought to threaten security – such
as human rights, statutory oversight or legal redress (Loader, 2009). This is a
„treadmill‟ „of „„tough‟ action/new criminal outrage/renewed public anger/more
„tough‟ action‟ (ibid:252), and results in increasingly harsh responses to social
problems.
The New Zealand realities of managerialism in punishment practices can be
observed in new developments, including:
Community punishments (such as home detention, community
detention and extended supervision) have been directed towards the
27