By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

2.5, United States 5.0 and New Zealand 1.0 (Bean, Layard, & Nickell, 1987). Suchlow levels were enhanced by high economic growth and low levels of inflation,adding to citizen wellbeing and security (Hazledine, 1984). In addition, jobs were‘for life’ and the welfare state was simply a ‘safety net’ for those who might need it(Bauman, 1997: 36).(b) Community involvement and social capitalA second characteristic of the early post­war years was the strength of socialcohesion, a feature enhanced by enthusiastic community engagement. Putnam(2000), for example, illustrates this by reference to high levels of religiousobservance, trade union membership, membership of voluntary organisations and soon. These activities then provide social capital (Putnam, 2000). The earliest writingon this subject was produced by Hanifen (1916: 19):[Social capital is] that in life which tends to make these tangiblesubstances count for most in the daily lives of a people, namely,goodwill, fellowship, mutual sympathy and social intercourse amonga group of individuals and families who make up a social unit …It is, therefore, the contact between an individual and the rest of the community thatbrings about an accumulation in social capital, whereby conditions in the communityimprove. For post­war Anglophone societies, social capital, and the benefits that itbrought – cohesion, trust, community engagement and networking – were consideredcrucial in maintaining a successful and evolving society. Outlets of social capital hadenhanced the security provided by governments, resulting in a trusting and cohesivesocial body.These features of the early post­war years had served as a strong foundation forpenal policymakers. Criminal justice matters were not yet politicised and so therewas little need for the community to become involved in them. If the crime rate wasmentioned and any anxieties surfaced, experts – that is ‘politicians, senioradministrators, penal reformers and academic criminologists’ – were able to wardthese off (Loader, 2006: 563), believing the benefits associated with welfare andprosperity would eventually solve the crime problem (Garland, 2001). The ability ofexperts to control penal policy matters was a fundamental characteristic of post­warcriminal justice (Loader, 2006). Consequently, criminal justice issues remained on12