By Tess Bartlett - Rethinking Crime and Punishment

Theoretically, however, the government had simply undertaken a ‘transferability ofpenal policy’ (Tonry, 2001: 527). In this sense, the government was making anothergesture by transferring the placement of punishment, but doing little to alter thepunishment itself. This dispersion was considered an ‘effective alternative’ to prison,and at the same time, it served another purpose as it was a way of expediting thereduction in the prison population (Burton, 2006e: Par. 5). Tonry (2001: 527) notesthat this form of transfer, provides a ‘punitive sentencing option that can plausiblysubstitute for imprisonment, and be calibrated to assure proportionality ofpunishment’. Furthermore, for the government, it was seen as a cost­effectivealternative to imprisonment; thus, Tonry (2001: 527) argues, sparing ‘the offendersthe pains and the state the costs of imprisonment’. However, the increased relianceon home detention led to further criticisms about being ‘soft’ on crime, with NationalParty member Kate Wilkinson stating:We have an increasing prison population. We are building, atexorbitant costs, more prisons. But softening the sentences is not theright, or the safe, way to reduce the number of prisoners.(New Zealand Parliament, 2006: Par. 11)Furthermore, changes to the Bail Act, which had arisen from public, political andmedia pressure in the aftermath of the Ashley and Burton cases, placed the onus ondefendants to justify being released on bail (rather than the prosecution justifying acustodial remand) (Burton, 2006d). As a result, fewer offenders received bail and theremand prisoner population grew substantially. In 2000, the remand prisonpopulation was thirteen percent of the prison population at 767 prisoners (Ministryof Justice, 2008). By 2008, the remand population (including custodial andsentenced remand prisoners) was twenty percent of the total prisoner population(Department of Corrections, 2008b) with numbers reaching 1718 (Department ofCorrections, 2008a). This was an increase of 124 percent over eight years. In thesame period, the custodial prisoner population increased by 36 percent. If the remandprison population had increased at the same rate as the prison population, the remandpopulation would have been about 1,043 by 2008, and the total prison populationwould be around 655 less than the actual prison muster; reducing the prison rate per100,000 and, in turn, the fiscal demand. If the government had indeed been dedicatedto reconstructing penal policy, one would have expected the Effective Interventions96