for victims’ rights have come from new victims’ rights groups such as CitizensUnited for Safety <strong>and</strong> Justice in Canada (CUSJ, 2006) <strong>and</strong> Justice For All in theUnited States (Justice For All, 2008). These groups differ markedly from those ofearlier years as their personal views <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong>s usually speak for a small minorityof crime victims (usually those in sensational murder cases) <strong>and</strong> at times mayrepresent nobody’s views but their own (Fattah, 1992b). They commonly draw onpersonal experience <strong>and</strong> ‘common sense’ arguments giving little consideration toevidence based research <strong>and</strong> analysis (Pratt & Clark, 2005). This focus on personalexperience makes them highly desirable to the media, as this type of reporting suitsthe more sensationalised <strong>and</strong> dramatic approach that was noted above.The formation of these new groups stemmed from the perceived failure of the courtsto take into account factors of moral guilt, <strong>and</strong> the amount of harm caused by crimeto innocent members of the lawabiding community (Harris, 1991). On the JusticeFor All website, for instance, the following is noted: ‘Justice For All shall act as anadvocate for change in a criminal justice system that is inadequate in protecting thelives <strong>and</strong> property of law abiding citizens’ (Justice For All, 2008: Par. 1). Thissystem inadequacy has motivated these groups to aim to place victims <strong>and</strong> theirfamilies at the heart of the criminal justice system (Sarat, 1997), while taking poweraway from experts in criminal justice who are regarded as being out of touch withordinary citizens. As a result, politicians have increasingly addressed victims ofcrime when implementing penal policy. In his speech on proposed antisocialbehaviour legislation, for example, then Prime Minister Tony Blair pledged to‘rebalance’ the system in favour of the victim <strong>and</strong> ‘the decent, lawabidingmajority…’ (Blair, 2006: Par. 59). The Prime Minister stated that widespread publicanxiety surrounding crime <strong>and</strong> justice was the reason for the legislation. He furthernoted that this anxiety was generated by a number of individuals who failed to abideby the rules <strong>and</strong> who were subsequently ‘getting away with it’ (Blair, 2006: Par. 9),thus implying that these individuals were not being punished with sufficient severity.It is the victim then, or groups speaking on their behalf, that have become central tovictims’, where the emphasis has been on victimisation rather than on challenging traditionalassumptions of male dominated criminology. Green (1993) argues that in many instances this resultedin a strengthening of the state when it came to women <strong>and</strong> crime which in the end resulted in anincreasingly punitive system.16
penal policy development where they have claimed the right to speak aboutvictimisation through their own highly political lens.However, it is not the typical crime victim who is represented by politicians <strong>and</strong> themedia, but instead an ideal victim. An example of this can be seen in theUnited States, where advocates of Megan’s Law (Office of Attorney General, 2007)reiterate that ‘Megan could have been anybody’s child. She was everybody’s child,a poignant symbol of the obligation that each of us has [to keep children safe]’(Megan Nicole Kanka Foundation, n.d: Par. 8) 7 . Against such innocence, offendershave also been transformed to represent the particularly ‘evil’ subgroup whomvictims’ representatives <strong>and</strong> politicians believe are significantly different from thelawabiding community (Pratt & Clark, 2005). The victim <strong>and</strong> the offender havetherefore been typified as being representative of all that is good on the one h<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong>all that is bad on the other. Consequently, members of the public who are thereceivers of this information are more likely to become increasingly sympathetic tocrime victims <strong>and</strong> increasingly punitive towards offenders. The increased fear ofcrime, when coupled with its politicisation, has seen the public <strong>and</strong> the victimbecome more central to penal policy debate, ultimately leading to penal populism.MethodologyThe research for the thesis was undertaken using qualitative documentary analysis(with components of quantitative analysis used in Chapters Two <strong>and</strong> Three), anintegrated method used to locate, identify, retrieve <strong>and</strong> analyse documents for theirrelevant significance <strong>and</strong> meaning (Altheide, 1996). The use of qualitativedocumentary analysis allowed the research to be reflective <strong>and</strong> interactive wherethemes emerged throughout the research process (Altheide, 1987). The thesis usedprogressive theoretical sampling. This sampling method allowed documents to beselected for theoretical reasons as the research <strong>and</strong> its arguments progressed(Altheide, 1996). The materials being analysed consisted of newspaper articles,parliamentary debates (as reported in Hansard <strong>and</strong> in the Appendix to the Journal ofthe House of Representatives), media releases, annual reports, yearbooks, <strong>and</strong>7Megan’s Law is an informal name given to laws in the United States that were named after sevenyear old victim Megan Kanka <strong>and</strong> require the public availability of information regarding sexoffenders.17
- Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgementsWriting this thesis
- Page 5 and 6: ContentsAbstract ..................
- Page 7 and 8: IntroductionIn September 2007, New
- Page 9 and 10: Thereafter, the Labourled coaliti
- Page 11 and 12: Postwar Security and Penalwelfa
- Page 13 and 14: the exterior of electoral politics,
- Page 15: social conditions, towards that whi
- Page 19 and 20: implementation of this legislation.
- Page 21 and 22: increasingly aware of crime, gainin
- Page 23 and 24: immigration was considered a threat
- Page 25 and 26: in agricultural exports, particular
- Page 27 and 28: The time would seem to be appropria
- Page 29 and 30: In keeping crime out of the public
- Page 31 and 32: The Labour Party’s response to th
- Page 33 and 34: across a multitude of family househ
- Page 35 and 36: Changes in New Zealand mediaThe dif
- Page 37 and 38: dominant feature of New Zealand soc
- Page 39 and 40: Despite its manifest contradictions
- Page 41 and 42: Governments and their civil servant
- Page 43 and 44: The Victims Task Force believed tha
- Page 45 and 46: eferendum into legislation, motivat
- Page 47 and 48: [New Zealand was] one of the safest
- Page 49 and 50: governments in the hope that ‘suc
- Page 51 and 52: McVicar paints of himself as the
- Page 53 and 54: that New Zealanders have been expos
- Page 55 and 56: This combination of circumstances c
- Page 57 and 58: Sympathy, empathy, commiseration an
- Page 59 and 60: [h]ad not risen from the ‘victims
- Page 61 and 62: illicit a response from the communi
- Page 63 and 64: Reform Bill). The Trust made submis
- Page 65 and 66: The willingness by Opposition MPs t
- Page 67 and 68:
I remind [the National Party] that
- Page 69 and 70:
However, the Labourled government
- Page 71 and 72:
6). While these opposing parties po
- Page 73 and 74:
One development in particular incre
- Page 75 and 76:
policymaking 32 . From 2000 to 2006
- Page 77 and 78:
had removed suspended sentences as
- Page 79 and 80:
Chapter Four:Resistance to Penal Po
- Page 81 and 82:
2004: 44). The situation worsened i
- Page 83 and 84:
were designed to address New Zealan
- Page 85 and 86:
$3.341 million annually from 2009/2
- Page 87 and 88:
organisation, was interested in bur
- Page 89 and 90:
Because of the capability of the me
- Page 91 and 92:
The case of Graeme BurtonThe second
- Page 93 and 94:
‘parole should be a privilege, no
- Page 95 and 96:
given the difficulties in measureme
- Page 97 and 98:
package to prioritise this issue. H
- Page 99 and 100:
emained insecure and overtly puniti
- Page 101 and 102:
the end of its tenure. As a result,
- Page 103 and 104:
The thesis has explained and analys
- Page 105 and 106:
main determinants are addressed. As
- Page 107 and 108:
Atkinson, J. (2002). Structures of
- Page 109 and 110:
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008b
- Page 111 and 112:
Cullen, P., & Lloyd, C. (1991). Lob
- Page 113 and 114:
Department of Statistics (N.Z) (199
- Page 115 and 116:
Hall, G., & O'Driscoll, S. (2002).
- Page 117 and 118:
Johnson, R. J., & Ogloff, J. R. P.
- Page 119 and 120:
Maguire, M. (2002). Crime data and
- Page 121 and 122:
Ministry of Justice (2002a). Senten
- Page 123 and 124:
New Zealand Parliament (1993a). Cri
- Page 125 and 126:
asket.co.nz.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/searc
- Page 127 and 128:
O'Conner, D. (2006). Effective Inte
- Page 129 and 130:
Prisoners in line for waist restrai
- Page 131 and 132:
Sentencing Amendment Act. (2007). R
- Page 133 and 134:
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products
- Page 135 and 136:
contours of New Zealand (pp. 1111