By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

had removed suspended sentences as well as community programmes, whilstperiodic detention and community service were combined to create the sentence ofcommunity work (Ministry of Justice, 2002a). As was noted in the Ombudsman’sreport on the criminal justice sector,[b]etween 1991 and 2001, community based sentences rangedbetween 33.8% and 30.1% of all sentences. In 2004 and 2005 theequivalent figures were 25.2% and 25.7%. Custodial sentences forthe same periods ranged from 7.3% to 8.2% between 1991 and 2001,and were 9.4% and 9.6% of all cases for 2004.(Smith, 2007: 49)The inference clearly is that the populist climate that existed around penal policymeant there was extreme public pressure on the judiciary to keep the communitysafe. This then resulted in the greater and lengthier use of imprisonment.Consequently, prison numbers climbed by 321 over 2002/2003, followed by anadditional 497 prisoners in 2003/2004 and 544 in 2004/2005 (Department ofCorrections, 2006; Ministry of Justice, 2008). As a result of rising imprisonment, thegovernment made plans to build four new prisons by 2006 which were to house anextra 1480 inmates (Department of Corrections, 2003). Due to the continual growthin prison numbers, the Department of Corrections was dealing with full capacityprisons on a daily basis.In this punitive environment, one aspect that received very little political discussionwas the government’s commitment to approach the problem from ‘both ends ofoffending’ (New Zealand Parliament, 2001b: Par. 4). A report released by thegovernment entitled ‘About Time’ was intended to be a corresponding package withthe Sentencing and Parole Acts (Department of Corrections, 2001). This report wasintended to curb ‘the ever­growing numbers who go into prison’ by concentratingon, amongst other things, the early prevention of crime in New Zealand (NewZealand Parliament, 2001b: Par. 4). While the government briefly acknowledged itscommitment to crime intervention, it was noted by the Minister of Corrections thatthe initiatives would be implemented only when the government had ‘earned thetrust of the people’ (assuming this was to be done by way of punitive policies) (NewZealand Parliament, 2001b: Par. 4). Therefore, it was as if the government was77