By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Chapter Two:Pressure Groups <strong>and</strong> the Emergence of the SensibleSentencing TrustAfter the 1999 law <strong>and</strong> order referendum, citizen’s groups began to play a pivotalrole in penal policy development. The extensive reporting of violent crime in themass media meant the New Zeal<strong>and</strong> public were more inclined to unite over criminaljustice issues that were considered a threat to the community – issues that hadpreviously been addressed exclusively by criminal justice experts. This chapter willexplain the circumstances that led to the formation of the Sensible Sentencing Trust,a unique law <strong>and</strong> order pressure group in New Zeal<strong>and</strong>.In order to discuss the various attributes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, <strong>and</strong> theenvironment which allowed it to flourish, it seems necessary to first define thosecharacteristics commonly associated with the pressure group. Rose (1961: 263)defines it simply as being ‘a group that presses’ while Jaensch (1981, cited in Cullen& Lloyd, 1991: 4, original emphasis) states that a ‘pressure group is a formalorganisation of people who share one or more interests or objectives or concerns <strong>and</strong>who try to influence the course of public policy to protect, or to promote theseobjectives’. The common feature is the aspiration of pressure groups to influencepublic policy <strong>and</strong> government (Blaisdell, 1957; Cullen & Lloyd, 1991; Key Jr, 1967;Rose, 1961; Wilson, 1981). To advance their interests, pressure groups may engagein active lobbying, where pressure is applied ‘directly on a legislature, or onindividual members, in an attempt to achieve their aims’ (Jaensch, 1981, cited inCullen & Lloyd, 1991: 4). Groups such as the Howard League for Penal Reform (aBritish reform group that was established in New Zeal<strong>and</strong> in the 1920s) have longadopted these lobbying techniques to advocate for penal policy change (Ryan, 1978).One is able to contrast the Howard League, which Ryan (1978: Title) refers to as ‘theacceptable pressure group’, with the Sensible Sentencing Trust, as it provides aframework with which to analyse the organisation <strong>and</strong> the different strategiesemployed. Ryan (1978: 76) explains that the Howard League rely on facts, where theaccuracy of the facts are of extreme importance:40