Judith Collins & the Women’s Refuge – Turning Personal Opinion into Public Policy

by Kim Workman - a Personal View

Heather Henare, the Chief Executive of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuge is no   shrinking violent – some would say that she’s ‘one tough cookie’.  It would be difficult to survive in the domestic violence sector for as long as she has, without being able to traverse some very difficult terrain.  The internal politics of the domestic violence sector are fraught, and managing an organisation of this kind requires considerable skill and commitment.  The challenge for survival is unremitting. 

But Heather is up to it.  Throughout her 25 year career she has been a consistent and powerful advocate for the rights of women and children and since her appointment in 2005 to her current position, has turned the Collective into a professional and highly respected organisation.  In 2013 she was honoured  as Zonta’s ‘Woman of theBiennium”.

In April, Heather met with the Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Justice, to discuss the role of Women’s Refuge.  

As Heather tells it; 

"We talked about protection orders, we talked about breaches of orders, we talked about the family court and then the minister asked me about what we are doing about gang women."

She told Ms Collins of a local initiative where refuge had negotiated with the gang president to be able to get access to women if they needed support.

"A lot of the women that are in those situations that have gang partners don't feel able to ring the police."

Women’s Refuge -  ‘That Sort of Place’

Three months later, Judith Collins used that information in an interview with Q and A’s Rachel Smalley .  Here is a transcription of the relevant piece:

RACHEL There's a vast number of women who go to Women's Refuge.

JUDITH Actually Rachel you're wrong.

RACHEL No I'm not Minister.

JUDITH You are wrong.

RACHEL When women don’t have faith in the justice system they go to Women's Refuge, they turn up on the front door know that they're going to let them in.

JUDITH Rachel, only some women go to Women's Refuge. A lot of women actually seek protection orders and they have the partner excluded…

JUDITH But Rachel that’s not true. What we have is quite a lot of people who are out there working in this area. We gave 70 million dollars last year to domestic violence in the NGO sector. That’s in addition to pretty much half of police resources to a whole range of people. Now I'm not going to give you the whole list cos it came through MSD but there's about  40 different providers.

RACHEL Why did you freeze the funding though for Women's Refuge, it doesn’t make sense, they are an organisation that is on the coal face.

JUDITH Well Rachel, Women's Refuges, there are many of them in New Zealand. Some of them about 42 of them, are with the collective which is the one that’s saying its funds are being frozen. Quite a few refuges have left that collective because of various reasons, and actually I think you need to understand that the collective is not the only provider of services in this area.

RACHEL Have you consulted them at all? Have you spoken with them before you…

JUDITH Actually I spoke with Women's Refuge, Heather Henare, a few weeks ago, when she told me that their situation was, they had a lot of gang women coming to them, and that they’ve been able to organise some sort of arrangement with the President of the local Mongrel Mob to allow their women to come to the Refuge when the violence got too bad. But there's a lot of women who are going to say that they don’t want to go to that sort of place, and they need to have options. That’s why there's lots of options out there.

The interview was disturbing, however one looks at it.  The most obvious shortcoming was that it played around with the truth.  In summary: 

Minister:  I met with Heather Henare a few weeks ago.

Fact:   The meeting was held in April – four  months before.

Minister:  Not a large number of women enter the refuge: 

Fact:  According to the Refuge  2013 Annual Report:   

·         19, 127 women and children stayed at safe houses, attending training programmes, got support and advocacy services, access to food, money, legal help, health services and court approved programmes   Of those 54% were women and 46% were children.

·         81,720 crisis calls were made to the Refuge Collective

Minister:  Only some women go to Women's Refuge. A lot of women actually seek protection orders and they have the partner excluded…

Fact:  The two are not mutually exclusive.  The Annual Report shows that: 

·         27,256 Police referrals were made to the to the Refuge Collective

·         1,448 Police Safety Orders were referred to Refuge Collective

Minister:  Quite a few refuges have left that collective because of various reasons.

Fact: In 2013, 1 refuge left the collective, and one closed for financial reasons.  There are currently 42 refuges in operation. 

Minister:  They have a lot of gang women coming to them….. - but there's a lot of women who are going to say that they don’t want to go to ‘that sort of place’, and they need to have options.  That’s why there's lots of options out there.

Fact:  The Collective is structured to provide maximum choice.  There are 42 local Women's Refuges around New Zealand gathered under one umbrella organisation.

Fourteen of these local refuges are for Māori wahine and tamariki and families, one is for Pasifika women and their children and families, and there is one associate refuge – Shakti – that’s a community organisation for migrant, refugee and ethnic families.

The refuges have a robust risk management policy.  Single women who are intolerant of children, are kept separate from women with children;  Mongrel Mob women are kept separate from Black Power women, and considerable care is taken to avoid accommodation arrangements which increase tension.  There is no evidence that we are aware of, to support the notion that women entering refuge should feel unsafe because some of the clients belong to gangs.  As Heather Henare assures us; “"If we have women that are in our refuge where we believe they may not be able to work with other women we will always look to find other refuges - that's why we have a collective."”

Heather Henare expressed her disappointment at the Minister’s response. 

Doing a ‘Katie Bradford ‘  

A Ministerial response of this kind has the potential to do considerable damage to the Collective, and to its reputation in the eyes of victims.  It raises the question in the public mind as to whether refuges are a safe place to stay.   More importantly, it vilifies and discriminates against women who are victims of domestic violence within the marginalised gang community.  

How does one describe this kind of behaviour?  I have come up with a new term.  Let's call it:   ‘doing a Katie Bradford’.  It should have the following entry in the New Zealand Dictionary of Slang :

‘Doing a Katie Bradford”  (adj.)  information given in good faith to a person of authority, which is subsequently used to impugn or belittle either the person providing it; or the organisation they represent. 

What was the Motive?

One can only wonder at the Minster’s motives for treating the Refuge movement in this way.  
The prevailing  view is that it’s payback for public comment or critical analysis that

doesn’t accord with government’s position.  Recently, Kiri Hannifin of the Refuge  was  sceptical about the accuracy of domestic violence statistics. 

I don't think that's it at all.  The Minister has had a consistent message since taking office in 2008 as the Minster of Police and Corrections, and from 2011 as the Minister of Justice.  She has an abiding faith in the potential of legislation to control and suppress criminal activity, and a view of the world which neatly splits the population up into ‘good guys’ and bad guys’. 

In a rousing speech to the September 2009 Sensible Sentencing Trust Conference, in Taupo,  the Minister not only spoke out strongly in favour of supporting victims of crime within the system , but in opposition against those who opposed reforms that favoured the rights of victims over the rights of others. 

“…we face opposition from people who put the rights of criminals before the safety of the police and public.”

“… there are people out there who would rather look out for the country’s burglars, thieves, rapists and killers than those who put their lives on the line to uphold the law.  “

I wondered at the time how the prison psychologists, and programme managers felt about being identified in this way.  Coming from the Minister of Corrections, the idea that those who choose to work with offenders, implicitly condoned their criminal activity, or had an investment in the status quo, was disturbing. 

I took the opportunity to address the issue, when I spoke at the National Victim Support Conference in November of that year.  

“If there is one message I want to get across this morning, is that we must actively resist this idea that you are either for offenders, or for victims.  We must reject any proposition that potentially divides us.  Some of us deal with offenders, some with victims, and many work with both.  To rate one activity above the other is unhelpful and counter productive. For those of us working with victims, it is a small step from taking an     anti-offender stance, to conveying those feelings to victims.  The first calls for justice from victims may in fact be calls for vengeance or punishment.  Such feelings are legitimate, but giving them immediate satisfaction may not further the healing process.”

The then CEO of Victim Support, Tony Paine, made the same point earlier that year, but in a more eloquent way; ⁽¹⁾

“It is very easy to talk about victims and offenders as if they were two quite separate groups (both demographically and morally). Of course the world is not that black and white. The NZ Crime and Safety Survey  (2) tells us that 50% of all victimizations are experienced by only 6% of New Zealanders and that the social and demographic indicators that identify those who are most likely to be victimized are identical to the markers for those likely to be offenders. The life stories and cultural contexts that weave victims and offenders together (often within the same person) make any artificial separation between offenders and victims just that: an artifice that oversimplifies our complex world.”

Well, I thought, that’s that.  We can now get on with our work.  But that was not to be.  A year later, the theme emerged once again.  It was yet another Ministerial speech to  the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Conference “Upright Citizens vs Violent Crims’ which had been upgraded from Taupo to Parliament Buildings.  Ms Collins  came up with an almost identical message: 

“This belief that it is not criminals that are responsible for their actions, but the rest of us, sends completely the wrong message.  Those who promote this strange morality can be counted on to speak out in opposition whenever reforms are made to the justice system so it better serves victims rather than offenders.”

It was a strange thing to say, given that the government’s ‘Drivers of Crime’ strategy had been launched, and the Ministry of Justice had produced an excellent set of policy briefs that examined the causes of crime, including identifying risk factors and causal mechanisms, biological factors, social factors, and theories as to the cause of crime.  Ms Collins view that offenders were totally responsible for their conduct, (which excludes biological or social factors) was well out of kilter with the government’s policies. 

David Garrett, fresh from the ‘three strikes' victory chose the same Conference to get personal.   He referred to a speech I had made in Hamilton ; ‘Rethinking Justice– or should it be Reimagining?’ the week earlier. 

In his speech, he referred to the media release of my speech this way:

“There are some people who make careers out of ignoring the will of the people. Kim Workman is one of those.  Just last week he sought to put words in your mouths. Most victims don't want their attackers to go to prison, he said in a press release. Victims would rather their assailants worked their debt off in the community, he stated. Victims' rights groups misrepresent the views of victims, he proclaimed.”

David Garrett represented those comments as my opinion. They were not. What I said, (which was accurately reported) was this:

“Recent UK studies of victims and their families found that 80% of victims thought that more constructive activities for young people in the community and better parental supervision would be more effective than a punitive sentence.  Seven out of 10 victims want more community treatment programmes, 62% of victims did not believe that prison worked, and 54% were in favour of making offenders work in the community to prevent them reoffending. Most importantly, 51% of victims were also in support of making offenders meet their victims to make amends personally.”

His next move was to claim to quote me 'exactly', as saying:

The last sentence of his spiel was most amusing. His exact words: 'we should….develop policy on the back of evidence and research, rather than rely on media hype and empty public noise.”

 It wasn't an exact quote, because he conveniently left out the mid-section. What I said, (which again was accurately reported), was this:

“We must not allow ourselves to be seduced by a vocal minority. Instead, we should challenge the authorities to do what Professor Peter Gluckman recently recommended, - develop policy on the back  of evidence and research, rather than rely on media hype and empty public noise.” 

The piece underlined was omitted by David – hardly an 'exact' quote.

Well, I thought  - there’s the second strike  - the Minister and her colleague David Garrett have made their position clear.  In summary:    

1. In order to uphold victim’s rights, we must ‘redress the balance’ and reduce offenders rights;

2. Those people and organisations who choose to work toward the rehabilitation of offenders have a ‘strange morality’. If in doing so , they speak out in the defence of the rights of people with whom they work, they are anti-victim;

3. We know what all victims want; the Sensible Sentencing Trust has told us;

2011 – A Shift in Position

There was a shift in 2011, coming possibly from  the launch of the  Better Public Service  Reducing Crime and Reoffending Strategy .  The Minister was now in an oversight role over this activity, and was intent on seeing not only a reduction in reoffending, but a resultant reduction in the prison population. 

I earned the Minster’s opprobrium when in June, I responded to a request for media comment, after she claimed that prison numbers were ‘levelling off’ due to an  increase in rehabilitation services.  

It takes at least  two years before the impact of rehabilitative programmes on recidivism rates can be measured; and the only publicly available evidence showed that recidivism rates had increased.   My media release set out the position as I understood it.  

I should have kept my mouth shut.  In the Minister’s next release, I was told sternly that “I should know better’, I was, ‘playing with statistics’, and  ‘trying to score cheap political points.’  So there.  I scurried back into my hole, and issued a sort of an apology.  In the meantime, Garth McVicar contended that the drop in the prison population was due to the ‘three strikes‘legislation. 

Nothing has happened over the past three years which supports the Minister’s view.  While the department currently claims a 12.7 reduction in reoffending since June 2011, the recidivism rates indicate a more modest increase.  Nor has there been any impact on the prison population, which has increased from 8,575 prisoners a year ago, to 8,667 today.
   

Confident that I had received my ‘3^rd Strike’, I was soon to discover that the Minster still had some fuel in her tank.   In November, a couple of rather excited journalists attending the  national Police Association Conference, rang to say that the Minster had made a comment in her opening speech which in their view, was directed at me. 

They provided a recording of her speech, in which she urged the Police to stand fast against “soft on crime” interest groups. 

"The past three years have shown what can be done when the Government backs the police.  It doesn't just mean standing behind the decisions police make, and not being swayed by the sorts of soft on crime interest groups, who dominate the media coverage - but are never there when things are going badly".

The claim that ‘soft on crime’ interest groups dominated the media was untrue. A survey of criminal justice groups mentioned by the Dominion Post and the NZ Herald in 2004 found that the highest number of mentions went to the Sensible Sentencing Trust at 57, with Victim Support trailing well behind at 33. This was a disappointing result, given that Victim Support has a great deal of expertise and knowledge around support for victims, and deals with 60,000 victims a year, compared to the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s 100 or so murder victims. Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation were mentioned 14 times, Howard League 10, and Rape Crisis(3 times).

This statement inferred that those people who hold views that favour effective rehabilitation over punishment, are both neglectful of their civic duty, and probably anti-police.  Given that I had served in the New Zealand Police and attained the rank of Senior Sergeant before resigning in 1976 (some of my best friends are policemen!), I found this statement offensive.

But what was more worrying was the way in which a whole lot of other groups, with similar objectives and views, had been tarred with the same brush.    

Three days later, I addressed the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law (ANZAPPL New Zealand) and The Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (Faculty of Forensic Psychiatry) Conference “The Rising Punitiveness”, 17 – 19 November 2011 Wellington , New Zealand.  My presentation was entitled "The Rush to Punish". In it, I referred to the Minister’s comments, calling for political leadership in the justice sector.  

It concluded with this comment: 

In my view, the groups she talks about exist only in her mind.  It is yet another manifestation of the ‘bad guys vs the good guys’ syndrome – a clumsy attempt to persuade the public that those who advocate rehabilitation and effective interventions, are anti-establishment, anti-victim, and anti-police.  The good guys are those who favour suppression, control and imprisonment, regardless of what the evidence tells us.
  

Attempts to discredit groups of this kind has the potential harden the views of victims and the Police toward the very groups that are able and willing to help in times of trouble. 

What is needed at this time, is a Minister of Justice who is capable of working collaboratively with the various factions within the criminal justice sector.  We don’t need a political leader who seeks to divide us.  People who  support both victims and  offenders, don’t suffer from some “strange morality”.  They do so because they understand that when Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan, he changed the definition of “neighbour’ from someone who lives next door and is of the same ethnic background and social status, to anyone who needs help.
 

It remains a puzzle as to why the Minister has chosen over the last three years, to divide those who are working toward common goals of reducing crime and social harm.  But there are a couple of things that provide a clue. 

Belief in Pure Evil

The first is that the Minister believes that some people are born evil.   In the  October 2009 launch of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy, at the Women's Corrections Facility, Manukau City, she put her position clearly: 

Some of these prisoners are simply born bad, and nothing anyone can do will prevent them forging a career in crime and spending much of their lives behind bars.

She is in interesting company.  Former columnist Michael Laws, took the eugenics argument to a whole new level that same year, in a column headed, “Child abuse symptom of human race evolving into them and us”.⁽⁴⁾  He made the following statements:

... Being born to an underclass family, especially if you are Māori, increases the risk of child abuse and child murder by an exponential degree. … Again we will hear excuses and blame-shifting from the liberal apologists the Kiros, Bradfords and Trotters all of whom will deny that the problem is specifically amongst a group who are devolving themselves from the human race. But the truth is that British evolutionary biologist Oliver Curry is right. Humankind is evolving along two distinct tracks and that genetic gap is growing with each child born … humankind is indeed diverging and dividing. … it is evolving as quickly and dramatically as climate change. And that it is no longer compressed or conformed by any social order, be it derived from the law or religion... Those of us who have lived half a century or more already accept this thesis.  

Michael Laws closed by referring to Oliver Curry as “the true prophet of 2008”.  By way of clarification, Curry, is actually a political economist, not a biologist.  The article he wrote in 2006 and referred to by Laws, was featured in the tabloid Sun under the heading, “All men will have big willies.”  It has since been refuted as bad science. 

The  article recalled ideas that were foundational to the formation of Nazi Germany’s crime policy, between 1933 and 1938, in which the underclass were referred to in this way:

“There is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, ... all that bear a human face are not equal.  Woe to him who forgets it.”

Two judgments follow from this perspective: 

1) evil people cannot be rehabilitated, and 

2) the eradication of evil requires the eradication of all evil people. 

Following this logic, researchers have recently tested the hypothesis that there would be a relationship between BPE and the desire to aggress towards and punish wrong-doers. 

Researchers have found support for this hypothesis across multiple studies, and employing diverse methodologies. BPE predicts such effects as: harsher punishments for crimes (e.g. murder, assault, theft), stronger reported support for the death penalty, and decreased support for criminal rehabilitation. Follow-up studies corroborate these findings, showing that BPE also predicts the degree to which participants perceive the world to be dangerous and vile, and the perceived need for preemptive and militant aggression to control behaviour ^{(5) (6)}

I don’t know whether the devil actually exists, but it would seem that believing in the power of human evil has significant and important consequences for how we approach solving problems of real-world wrongdoing. When we see people’s antisocial behavior as the product of an enduring and powerful malice, we see few options beyond a comprehensive and immediate assault on the perpetrators. They cannot be helped, and any attempts to do so would be a waste of time and resources.

That set of beliefs if shared widely, contributes to a range of policies and practices which attack the dignity and mana of offenders and prisoners e.g.  proposals for military style boot-camps for young offenders, the use of shipping containers as cells, doubling up of cells, increased hours of lockdowns, increased surveillance and control, and a risk-centric approach which treats prisoners and offenders as objects rather than people capable of transformation.   

The longer we cling to strong beliefs about the existence of pure evil, the more aggressive and antisocial we become.  And we may be aggressing towards individuals who are “redeemable.”  That may be the greatest trick the devil has ever pulled.

“I Don’t Talk to Prisoners”

This belief in pure evil may in turn, have influenced her personal decision  not to talk to offenders and criminals.  In an address to Police Maori Leadership Conference on 10^th November 2010, the Minister made her position clear: 

“As Minister I have a policy of not engaging with gangs.  I won’t even knowingly meet with anyone who I know to be a gang member."

I spoke at the same Conference, and unbeknowing, had also chosen to speak about gang managment - but took a polar position. 

Ms Collin's stance of not speaking with prisoners and offenders, became a talking point both in New Zealand and overseas. In 2010 I visited Port Philip Prison, Melbourne, a multi purpose prison managed by G4S. Ms Collins had visited the prison earlier that year, and spent time talking to management and staff. According to the staff, one of the first people

chosen to share his insights with her, was a prisoner. The Minister looked steadily out the window during the conversation and avoided eye contact. One of the Minister’s support staff subsequently made it known to the prison management that the Minister did not speak to prisoners. The itinerary went ahead as planned including the final session, at which a ‘staff member’ discussed with the Minister his role in mentoring and supporting prisoners on their entry into prison. Well, the prison staff conceded, he wasn’t ‘exactly’ a member of the prison staff. What was initially a talking point, become a laughing point. 

This position may help to explain why the Minister’s view of people who are ‘born evil’, and are gang members, should be treated differently from others, even when they are victims who seek the support of Women’s Refuge.  It is the same position that the Sensible Sentencing Trust takes in refusing support to victims who come from ‘crime families’.
 

Where is all this leading?  Well it seems to me that a Minister who refuses to talk with members of her constituency i.e. a group of people with shared interests, is unable to carry out the role to its fullest potential.  

The Treasury Minister, the Hon Bill English, in a speech to the Institute of Public Administration, recently stressed the importance of public servants, consulting not only with the public, but with justice consumers. ^[7] He urged public servants to focus more strongly on clients and customers.

“The public service and politicians run the risk of losing respect for the people for whom we are providing services. To combat that, we will increasingly ask, “Do we really understand the nature of our interaction with the general public, and our customers?” “Do we really understand how the behaviour of public institutions impacts on those people, and have we asked them?”

Bill English went on to give as an example, the importance of treating prisoners as customers;

… That is going to mean more sitting down and understanding our customers, for example the newly-released prisoner who is potentially a very expensive individual in our community because he is likely to end up back in a very expensive system. Do we know how he thinks and what his aspirations are?

It is good advice, and he made it clear that it applied not only to public servants but also to their political masters.  If Ms Collins had 'talked to the animals', she may well have found that they had similar human qualities to everyone else. A visit to a women's refuge, and a session with gang women, would provide an enriching experience.   I am not sure how else this situation can be resolved, and it may be that such an idea is a "bridge too far".  

But here's a thought. Ms Collins was a superb Minister of Veteran’s Affairs.  My old army mates tell me that she was warm, engaging, compassionate and took the time to listen to their issues, visit the RSA Clubs, and walk the walk.  These are skills and gifts which are rare and in high demand.  The Minister needs a portfolio in which she can exercise her talents  fully, without being hindered by personal, psychological and emotional barriers.  Perhaps a role in Foreign Affairs, Taxation, or Minister in Charge of the America’s Cup.   

There is too much at stake otherwise. 

Justice as a Public Good

Over the next decade, the Minister of Justice will be pivotal in putting a stamp on determining the course and nature of justice.   The person driving that agenda needs to understand two things.

First, that justice is always relational and much of its activity should be directed toward problem solving, rather than punishment. It is not a detached exercise involving breaches of the law, judgment and punishment. It embraces the whole fabric of social relationships and inter-relationships—individuals, families, communities, nations; and sectors—economics, politics, religion, gender, race, environment. Justice is about us and how we live with one another in nourishing and supporting the individual and social well-being of all people.^{. (8)}

Second, the challenge for the Minister is to discourage policies and practises which  pit the rights of victims against the needs of offenders, or to use judicial processes to this end.  The removal of offenders rights does not inherently enhance the rights of victims.  

Cook reminds us:

"If a society cannot guarantee ‘the equal worth of all its citizens’, mutual and self-respect and the meeting of basic needs, it cannot expect that all citizens will feel they have an equal stake in abiding by the law, and it cannot dispense justice fairly and enhance confidence in the law."⁽⁹⁾

The desire to ‘rebalance’ the criminal justice system, raises questions about the government’s duty to secure justice as a ‘social’ good’ for all New Zealanders. 

The distinction between personal and public opinion and public interest is an important one since it reminds us that the criminal justice system is a public good. This observation returns us to the problematic presumptions that underpin the rebalancing agenda, and the role of the Minister in promoting it. 

We need to continually ask the question,  “What is in the public good?” There is an important distinction – a line – between personal and political opinion and the public good, a distinction often lost when policy-making is overtly politicised. The criminal justice system must serve the public good and not be captive to personal or public opinion, which is often inadequately informed and highly volatile. It is a public good that the system works fairly and effectively for all parties, not just for complainants or victims. 

References

1) Paine, Tony, “Victim Support, Victims Rights: an agenda for prevention” - an address delivered at Addressing the underlying causes of offending; What is the evidence? - Thursday 26 and Friday 27 February, Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University;
2) Mayhew P., and Reilly J. (2007) The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006. Ministry of Justice, Wellington, New Zealand.p.46
3) Bartlett, Tess, The Power of Penal Populism: Public Influences on Penal and Sentencing Policy from 1999 to 2008 pp 49-50. A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Criminology (2009)
4) Michael Laws, “Child abuse symptom of human race evolving into them and us”, Sunday Star Times, 4 Jan 2009
5) Fighting the Good Fight: The Relationship Between Belief in Evil and Support for Violent Policies Pers Soc Psychol Bull January 2014 40: 16-33, first published on September 3, 2013
6) Webster, RJ and Saucier ‘Angels and Devils are Amongst Us: Assessing Individual Differences in Belief in Pure Evil and Pure Good’ Per Soc Psychol Bulletin 2013 Mov; 39 (11) 1455-70
7) Hon Bill English, Speech to the Institute of Public Administration, 20 Feb 20148)
8) Ronald W.Nikkel, Conversatio Morum, “Justice Between Us” 7 November 2011(9)
9) Cook, D. (2006) Criminal Justice and Social Justice, London: Sage p.21

---

                                                                                                                                                      

[2]