By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

ConclusionThis thesis has explained that since the post­war penal­welfare years, New Zealandhas undergone a series of social, economic and political changes that has seen ittransform from an outwardly serene and secure society to one that has become moreindividualistic and divided, providing an ideal breeding ground for penal populism.While crime was on the rise during the post­war years, it was not regarded bycitizens as being a particularly significant issue. There was no pressure on politiciansto use punitive penal policies to get elected. Furthermore, sentencing policy wasdealt with by experts on criminal justice matters and it was the treatment of theoffender and the reduction in imprisonment that was paramount in policy and publicopinion remained on the exterior of penal policymaking.However, since the 1980s, New Zealand has experienced economic and politicalinstability due to a number of factors: Labour governments restructured theeconomy, broadening inequalities and leaving citizens feeling distrustful ofgovernment and its political processes; employment patterns began to shift causinginsecurity; there was a loosening of social bonds as the country became increasinglyheterogeneous and the nuclear family began to erode. The thesis has argued that allof these factors caused immense social insecurity, whilst simultaneously leavingcitizens feeling distrustful of a government that seemed distant from their day­to­dayconcerns. It also explained how the proliferation of the mass media exacerbatedthese insecurities by offering sensationalised accounts of crime that were visuallyentertaining, yet lacking in knowledge based research, as it was these accounts ofcrime and victimisation that suited the requirements of the deregulated media. Thechanging nature of the mass media led to an increased visibility of crime, where itbecame a favourable source for politicians looking to gain public support forpunitive penal policies. The thesis argued that because of the credibility given bypoliticians to the 1999 law and order referendum, ‘public opinion’ has become afundamental element in the administration of penal policy, while expert opinion istypically sidelined. The referendum also contributed to a ‘tough on crime’ discoursethat has continued to dominate public and political debate on penal policy, despitethe previous government’s attempt to reconstruct contemporary penal policy towards100