by Kim Workman
The Reducing Reoffending Statistic - Pushing the Boat Out
“He Who Pushes Boat Out Too Far Will End Up Trimming Sails”
The Reducing Reoffending Statistic - Pushing the Boat Out
“He Who Pushes Boat Out Too Far Will End Up Trimming Sails”
Ancient Proverb
Nigel
Latta – Behind Bars
My attention however, was drawn to a short conversation
between Nigel Latta and Corrections CEO, Ray Smith, in which Ray spoke about the
work transition, vocational training, and rehabilitation programmes currently
operating within the prison system, how the
reoffending rate had reduced by 12.5%, and was targeted toward a 25% reduction
by 2017.
‘Pushing
the Boat Out’
Ray told Nigel Latta, that he had received advice that it was
difficult to reduce reoffending beyond about
5%. He had decided to ‘push the
boat out’ and aim for a reduction of 25% by 2017. Rethinking understands there was a push from
senior government advisers to go for ‘big, audacious goals’, rather than goals
which could be supported by existing
evidence. Some senior Corrections
managers were strongly opposed to the idea, and resigned.
My own experience, overseas contacts and everything I had
read, suggested that attaining a goal of that magnitude had never been achieved
anywhere in the world, and the most one could hope for was a 5% reduction over
two to three years. While I admired the
Minister’s courage in aiming for the goal, I wondered how it could be
achieved. When Corrections reported an 11% reduction in reoffending
in the fiscal year to June 2013, I commented on it in an October 2013 newsletter article “The Reducing Crime Rate –It’s Not All Smoke and Mirrors”, I had this to say:
“There is one other figure that
is mystifying people familiar with crime statistics; the reduction of reoffending by 11% in the fiscal
year to June 2013. No one can recall
ever seeing a reduction of that magnitude in a 12 month period. It means 1,947 fewer offenders returning
against a target of 4,600 fewer by 2017. The official explanation is
that this significant drop is due to the Policing Excellence programme, with
its emphasis on alternative resolutions, and the Department of Corrections’
investment in enhancing rehabilitation services across the offender population,
(although it notes that the roll-out of rehabilitation measures on re-offending
will not become evident in the next two years). Whatever it is, it is likely to
attract international attention if it tracks toward a 25% reduction by 2017."
At the time, I was unable to reconcile the progress reports
from the Better Public Service (BPS) Reducing Crime and Reoffending strategy with other information we had about
the reoffending rate. In April 2014 I
pointed out that Salvation Army’s State of the Nation report presented a different view.
My public concern was sufficient to prompt an invitation from the Department of Corrections to myself and colleagues to visit, and have the statistics explained. I suffer from a major block wherever numbers and statistics are concerned, and had difficulty understanding what was happening. Not so my colleagues, some of whom made a second trip, and were then able to advise me how this significant reduction was achieved.
Prior to the meeting, we assumed that the BPS approach was
to measure all people with a previous conviction, and report annually on any
reduction in the reoffending rate. It
was not unreasonable, as the network survey referred
to in Part One of this blog showed that 80% of all respondents believed the same
thing. We subsequently discovered that
the reoffending rate related only to offenders currently being managed by the
Department of Corrections.
Achieving
a 12.5% Reduction in Re-offending - How it is Done
The methodology used to arrive at the 12.5% reduction in
reoffending is set out below. The
figures below may not be precisely accurate; but the
methodology works like this:
Step One: Establish
a Baseline
1.
The base line was established in June
2011
·
2033 of the 7502 prisoners
released the previous year, went back to prison, giving a base re-imprisonment
rate of 27.1%;
·
16,190 of those 53,246 starting a community sentence were
reconvicted, giving a base re-conviction rate of 30.4%
·
The two figures were combined, giving a total number of offenders
of 18223.
2.
The decision was made to reduce the 18,223 by 25% and round it off
to 4,600 fewer offenders.
Step Two: Results by October 2013
3. There were 1981 less ex-prisoners re-imprisoned ; 52 less than the June 2011 baseline of 2033. That is a reduction of 2.56% in re-imprisoned offenders.
4. There were 14,166 community sentenced offenders, 2024 less than the June 2011 baseline of 16,190. That is a reduction of 12.5% in re-convicted community based offenders.
3. There were 1981 less ex-prisoners re-imprisoned ; 52 less than the June 2011 baseline of 2033. That is a reduction of 2.56% in re-imprisoned offenders.
4. There were 14,166 community sentenced offenders, 2024 less than the June 2011 baseline of 16,190. That is a reduction of 12.5% in re-convicted community based offenders.
Step Three: Calculate the Reduction
in Reoffending
5. If there was a 2.56% reduction in prisoner reoffending, over two
years, and a 12.5% reduction in reoffending by community based offenders, where
did the 11.28% overall reduction come from?
Simple. The department added the 52 prisoners and the 2024 community
based offenders together, a total of 2076, and came up with a combined
weighted average reduction of 11.28%.
Step Four: Results in 2014
6. There were 1921 less ex-prisoners re-imprisoned ; 112 less than the June 2011 baseline of 2033. That is a reduction of 5.51% in re-imprisoned offenders.
7. In October 2013 there were 14,060 community sentenced offenders, 2130 less than the June 2011 baseline of 16,190. That is a reduction of 12.5% in re-convicted community based offenders. That is a reduction of 13.16% of the June 11 baseline.
6. There were 1921 less ex-prisoners re-imprisoned ; 112 less than the June 2011 baseline of 2033. That is a reduction of 5.51% in re-imprisoned offenders.
7. In October 2013 there were 14,060 community sentenced offenders, 2130 less than the June 2011 baseline of 16,190. That is a reduction of 12.5% in re-convicted community based offenders. That is a reduction of 13.16% of the June 11 baseline.
Step Five: Latest Calculation
8. Corrections added the 112 prisoners and the 2130 community based
offenders together, a total of 2242, and came up with a combined weighted
average reduction of 12.3%
Mission accomplished.
What Does this All Mean?
In simple terms, it means that:
- The percentage of
ex-prisoners who re-offended, reduced by 5.51% over 3 years or 1.8% per
year
- The percentage of offenders
on community service who reoffended, reduced by 13.6% or 4.5% per year
- Weighted together overall
offending reduced by 12.3%
The Public Have Been
Misled
A reduction of 1.8 % per year over three years, for prisoners is a
positive outcome; and in line with what one could expect from a Corrections
organisation committed to reducing reoffending.
But a reduction of 5.5% over three years in reoffending by ex-prisoners
is not a reduction of 12.5%
Unfortunately, the way the information has been presented to the
public through progress reports and media releases, is misleading. The media spin has left the public with the
distinct impression that there has been a 12.5% reduction in reoffending, due
to efforts in prison rehabilitation
.
.
On 2 April, in the
Prime Minister's address to the North Harbour Club he
credited the prisons with achieving the 12.6% reduction on their own.
“In prisons, for example, we
have focused very strongly on literacy and numeracy, skills training, treatment
for drug and alcohol addiction, working prisons and reintegration of ex-prisoners
into the community. That is giving offenders the opportunity to turn their
lives around and stay away from crime.
Already this approach has reduced reoffending by 12.6 per cent, which is
halfway to the target we've set ourselves of a 25 per cent drop.”
A month earlier, Minister Anne Tolley while according
Community Probation a passing nod, described a range of prison based programmes
and initiatives which she credited with impacting on the reoffending rate. Here are some of the highlights:
Reoffending has fallen by 12.6 per cent against the June 2011 benchmark, resulting in 2,319 fewer offenders and 9,276 fewer victims of crime each year.
“There have been unprecedented increases in prisoner and community offender rehabilitation under this Government, which are already paying dividends.
“Our focus on education, skills training, addiction treatment, working prisons and reintegration is giving offenders the opportunity to turn their lives around and stay away from crime.
There has been a 1500 per cent increase in places on drug and alcohol treatment programmes for prisoners since 2008.
At the same time, there has been a 155 per cent increase in the number of prisoners starting literacy and numeracy programmes, and an 830 per cent jump in the number of prisoners gaining qualifications.
We are determined to reach our target of a 25 per cent reduction in reoffending by 2017, which will result in huge benefits for communities and taxpayers.
It will mean safer streets, with 18,500 fewer victims of crime each year, as well as 4,000 fewer community offenders and 600 less prisoners in jails.”
It will mean safer streets, with 18,500 fewer victims of crime each year, as well as 4,000 fewer community offenders and 600 less prisoners in jails.”
Documentaries
like ‘Nigel Latta: Locked Up’ and the 29 June Marae
Programme “Working Toward Freedom” featured Corrections officials talking about
a 12.5% reduction, and doing so within a prison setting.
What About the Reduction
in Offending by Community Sentenced Offenders?
At first glance, Corrections would seem to have been much more
successful in its efforts to reduce reoffending by community –based
offenders. An annual average reduction
of 4.5% and an impressive 13.6% reduction in reoffending is not to be sniffed
at. Why wasn’t there significant
publicity about this result?
Most people who know, suggest that the reduction in
community-based reoffending had very little to do with Corrections. The view currently held is that two things
have happened. First, there has been a
significant drop in the number of community-based offenders who are being
charged with offences against justice , which includes breaches of a sentence or court order (e.g.
periodic detention, supervision, community service, parole, bail, and
non-molestation orders). The numbers of
offenders charged with these offences have reduced from 55,681 in 2010/11 to
47,345 in 2012/13. Second,
community-based offenders who commit other minor offences, are more likely to
be dealt with by the Police through alternative dispositions e.g. warnings,
counselling, than by way of prosecution.
This is a positive move, as the great majority of this group offend at
the lower end of the spectrum, and are likely to respond positively to being
offered alternatives. But it may also
explain why the reoffending rate by community offenders has plummetted
Building Trust in
Government - Dealing with the Democratic
Deficit
It will be critical to review the way the Justice Sector and its responsible Minsters inform the public about the BPS Reducing Crime and Reoffending Strategy beyond 2014. There is growing suspicion about the results –any ongoing spin needs to stop.
It will be critical to review the way the Justice Sector and its responsible Minsters inform the public about the BPS Reducing Crime and Reoffending Strategy beyond 2014. There is growing suspicion about the results –any ongoing spin needs to stop.
The offending statistics are already the subject of
scepticism and speculation. In October
2013, ,
in the article “It’s Not All Smoke and Mirrors” we also
raised concern about the reported drop in the number of people charged
with a violent offence, (a 19% percent reduction over the previous five
years).
“A change in the way statistics
are gathered, no longer makes it possible to distinguish between family
violence and other violence.
Increasingly, those in the domestic violence sector are reporting fewer
prosecutions, more diversions for what they consider to be serious offences, a trend toward not charging offenders and a
greater reliance on the victim being the evidence provider. It is a regression to the policies of the
1960’s. We are concerned that despite
their experience of levels of family violence remaining steady, if not
increasing, Police statistics are showing that offences are falling.”
This concern was justified, when in July 2014, new
figures issued by the Family Violence Clearinghouse at Auckland University showed that charges for male assaults against
female, applications for protection orders and prosecutions for breaches of
protection orders all increased up to 2009-10, but had all fallen since then by
between 14 per cent and 29 per cent. The
number of police investigations into family violence incidents kept on climbing
from 86,800 in 2010 to 95,100 incidents last year. But the number of investigations that led to
an offence being recorded dropped from 45,500 to 37,900 - from 52 per cent of
all incidents investigated in 2010 to 40 per cent last year.
The new government must consult
the public about future plans to reduce crime and re-offending. We have arrived at a point where the public
will forgive almost anything, provided the government of the day is truthful
and straightforward.
Dealing with the
Unintended Consequences – The Bigger Picture
Rethinking’s concern is not only with issues of transparency and
accountability. It has as much to do
with the extent to which this misinformation might guide policy decisions now
and in the future. The false belief that
prisons are making a significant impact on reducing reoffending, could have
serious implications downstream, as government decides where and how to invest
its resources. We have identified the
following issues.
Prisons Don’t Work
The Salvation Army’s
Pre-Election Campaign video on Crime and Justice , put the facts
bluntly. Of the 9,000 prisoners released
annually, 4000 commit another crime within 12 months, and 3000 return to prison
within 2 years. Prison’s Don’t
Work.
But that is not
the message that the Department of Corrections is sending. Constant publicity about the success of
prisons in reducing reoffending (by 12.5%!) misleads the public, and could
result in the misguided belief that prison based
rehabilitation is highly successful. There
is no compelling evidence for that. A
recent report from the Washington State Institute of Public Policy, a world
leader in assessing the cost/benefit of correctional programmes, found that
while imprisoning
high-risk offenders provides a marginally positive return, imprisoning low- and
medium-risk people provides a negative benefit-cost ratio.[1] In the Department’s own publication [2]
it examines reviews and meta analysis and confirms the view that
community-based programmes generate better outcomes than custodial programmes,
with community programmes generating effect sizes approximately double those of
institutional programmes.[3] [4] [5]
Over-hyping
prisons as an ideal place to conduct
rehabilitation, can result in a culture developing, in which prison staff and
indeed politicians, persuade themselves that ‘prisons work’. Take one example.
"Spending time in prison can open up a new world of opportunities for those young people who may have missed out on schooling or never had a job."[6]
Promoting prison as a
positive experience for young offenders ignores the fact that 89% of youth prisoners have previously been in
the care or supervision of Child, Youth and Family. If the state is competent to provide a sound
education and transition to work, it would have done so when they were under
CYF supervision or care. They have
failed young offenders miserably, and the Corrections record is no better - reoffending statistics show that around 80%
will reoffend after leaving prison.
This reasoning also
flies in the face of the existing evidence about the effect of incarceration on young
offenders. New Zealander’s Ian Lambie
and Isabel Randell’s recent research
shows that:
- Incarcerating youth in prison has little positive impact in reducing crime.
- The literature highlights this problem, particularly in adult facilities.
- There are many negative effects from incarcerating young people in prisons.
- Incarceration fails to address both the young person's developmental and criminogenic needs.[7]
Reinvestment within and beyond the Justice Sector
Publicity
that over-sells the effectiveness of prisons, could well result in the
government over-investing in prison-based programmes, and under-investing in
community based rehabilitation, either within Corrections, or elsewhere.
There
is a growing concern within the community sector for example, that the 1500%
increase in drug treatment programmes within the prisons, has not been matched
by government investment in community based drug and alcohol facilities. On the contrary, the number of community
residential drug treatment facilities have reduced in the last five years, with
many offenders assessed for treatment, waiting 2 – 3 months to get access to a programme. The
Auckland Drug Courts have been highly successful, but are experiencing the same
problem. In the view of some, the
judiciary have been sentencing some
offenders to prison, to ensure treatment – adequate community based treatment
could obviate that decision.
Community Investment
The
pre-election video released by the Salvation
Army on ‘Crime and Punishment’, makes the point well.
The
District courts are packed with young offenders struggling with drug and
alcohol and mental health issues. Many
will appear repeatedly before the Court, without access to community based
treatment, until they are finally sent to prison – where possibly for the first
time, treatment is available.
Four
of the six action plans identified in the BPS Reducing Crime and Reoffending
Strategy relate to issues raised by the Salvation Army:
·
Improve
assessment and interventions for youth
·
Reduce
availability of alcohol
·
Increase
alcohol and drug treatment in the community
·
Strengthen
rehabilitation and re-integration services to prepare and support people to
live law-abiding lives
An Increase in the
Prison Population
In the
light of the government’s success in reducing crime and reoffending, one would
have expected the prison population to
decline. Minister Anne Tolley, in her March
media release, promised that there would be 600 less prisoners by 2017. Roger Brooking has commented on this issue. The alarming news is that the current prison
population stands at 8,754 as at 28 Aug, an increase of 119 prisoners on the 8,535 that were
in prison 12 months ago.
The
reason for this increase is straightforward.
The government do not have, within its BPS Reducing Crime and
Reoffending Plan, a goal or a strategy to reduce imprisonment - despite the Hon Bill English’s 2009
declaration that ‘prisons are a fiscal and moral failure’.
The Way Forward – Being
Smart on Crime
 |
Rethinking’s
view is clear. The Justice Sector and
its responsible Minsters need to re-group post-election, and together with the
State Services Commission and other agencies, review the current BPS Reducing
Crime and Reoffending Action Plan. In our
view, the meeting agenda should include the following items:
1. Review the Communication
Strategy
For
all the reasons set out above, the BPS Strategy must find ways of reducing the
‘democratic deficit’. The general public
are tired of spin, and want to join with government in
reducing crime and
reoffending. Ideally, the strategy
should include a public consultation process of the kind implemented when Ministers Power and Sharples launched the
initial Ministerial Meeting for the ‘Drivers of Crime’ strategy – an initiative
which sadly, has lost its way.
2. Review the Goals
There
are two things that need to happen.
First, goals that are hugely aspirational are fine, but they deserve to
be based on evidence based research, rather than media hype. Incentivisation is a double edged sword. On the one hand it can encourage the development
of a highly motivated work culture. On
the other, it can encourage a culture of
duplicity and deceit; a workplace where the end justifies rather naughty
means.
Second,
take the time to consider whether there are not more effective means of
achieving the desired results. New goals
may be required. For example, there is no goal for reducing imprisonment
levels. Often, the current penchant is
for measures which focus on monitoring
and control; often the least effective
in reducing crime. I have already argued that the offender’s register, (a monitoring device) is ineffective, and a strategy which
aims at ‘outing’ unknown child sex offenders, and encouraging them to seek
treatment, would produce a better result.
The $35.5 million Cabinet has agreed will be spent over the next ten years,
would be far better invested in a community prevention strategy.
3. Conduct a Cost Benefit Analysis
Closely
aligned with goal review, is the challenge to focus on programmes and
initiatives
which provide a cost benefit.
Again, the movement from expensive monitoring and control measures to
prevention programmes usually produce superior results. The prestigious
Washington State Institute of Public Policy, a world leader in cost-benefit
analysis, rate the use of extended supervision orders for released sex
offenders as the least cost effective intervention in the corrections arsenal –
a return of 9c for every dollar spent.
On the other hand, Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) for
released sex offenders, have been proven highly effective, but have received almost
no funding over the last eight years.
4. Establish Independent Evaluation
of Justice Programmes and Initiatives
5. Consider Justice Reinvestment
It is
equally important to consider not only which programmes work best, but
where. There may need to be a
reinvestment of Corrections funding for rehabilitation programmes from the
prisons into community probation. The
Health sector needs to be engaged in a higher level of investment in community
based drug and alcohol treatment programmes, and mental health
initiatives.
It
could also result in a re-appraisal of the role of Community Probation, in
reducing reoffending. Recent and
emerging research shows that a greater investment in staff development around relationship skills, problem-solving,
and structuring interviews, the introduction of the ‘good lives’ model, and
desistance theory have all served to lower the recidivism rate of offenders
supervised by probation officers, in comparison to control groups that did not
receive training.[8] There is also strong evidence that while
families, whanau and communities can be the sites or sources of pressure to
offend, they also play a vital role in the reduction of offending. While there is already a positive turnaround
occurring within Probation, the question arises as to whether there should not
be greater investment in that part of the system.
Significantly,
there is emerging strong evidence for a
more holistic approach, which maximises the use of community resources,
including volunteers, - a little-studied, but valued resource for
rehabilitation and reintegration. In
terms of the prevailing risk, needs, responsivity model, it calls for less
emphasis on risk, and more emphasis on responsivity. [9]
6. Acknowledge that
Prison Doesn’t Work
Underpinning
a review of the BPS Reducing Crime and Reoffending Strategy, must lie the
assumption that prison doesn’t work.
Everything we read, watch, and research, tells us the same thing.
Let
Professor Emeritus Andrew Coyle, former Director of the International Centre
for Prison Studies, Kings College and a former Prison Governor of many years’
experience, have the last word. In a foreword
to the ‘The Effects of Imprisonment’[10] he summed it up neatly:
“It seems to me that
there is also another dangerous influence at work and that is the proposition
advanced by some people who work in and around the prison system that good can
come out of imprisonment; that it can be an important method of changing the
behaviour and attitude of those who are sent there, so that they will come out
better people and much less likely to commit crime as a result of their
experiences in prison. This is what Nils
Christie has called the denial of existence strategy’;
“Study after study has
shown how penal measures and long-term incarceration have been made more
acceptable to society if they were disguised as treatment, training, or pure
help to suffering individuals in need of such measures.”[11]
As a result, in England
and Wales, many prisoners are now required to undergo ‘programmes’ in an
attempt to change their behaviour, the number of women in prison has increased
four times within a very short period; in some parts of the country drug addicts
can get better treatment than in the community,; and it is now claimed that
some difficult children are better of in prison service custody than in a
welfare environment. Duguid [12]’
has characterised this phenomenon, which
of course is not new, as treating the prisoners as ‘object rather than subject’
someone whose only role is to co-operate with decisions made by others, rather
than someone to be encouraged to take control of his or her own life.”
7. Review the Purpose of Prisons
The
larger question that government and government officials must then grapple with
is this: What should prisons do?
“During all the years
that I worked in prisons I never ceased to ask myself why I did so. This was not because of obsessive uncertainty
about my chosen career. Rather, it came
from a desire never to lose sight of the reality of what I was doing. Shorn of all subtleties and rationalisations,
my task was to deprive other human beings of their liberty. I tried to ensure that I did so in the most
decent and humane way possible. I
attempted to reduce the pain of imprisonment for those men who were under my
care. I did my best to provide them with
opportunities to make positive use of their enforced time in captivity. But in doing all those things it was
important always to remember that prison is by its very nature a debilitating
experience. That is why in any decent
and democratic society the imposition of imprisonment should always be an
instrument of last resort, only to be used when there is no other option.”
Recent Developments - Report on the visit of
the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment to New Zealand
Today,
I received a copy of the Report on the visit of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to New Zealand (CAT/OP/NZL/ 1) ,
formulated following a visit to New Zealand in April and May 2013.
It
effectively answers the question, as to what prison priorities must be. The report
is highly critical of the New Zealand’s overuse of imprisonment, the New Zealand prison system, and its treatment
of prisoners. For example:
- · It recommends an overhaul of the classification system; prisoners belonging to different categories were often subjected to the same rules in terms of hours of lock-down, food, exercise etc. Prolonged exposure to inappropriate regime conditions, such as those which it observed for remand prisoners and youth, constitute ill-treatment;
· Remand prisoners were routinely locked-down for up to 19 hours per day while awaiting trial, in addition to a lack of appropriate facilities for exercise and delays in access to medical assistance. Periods of “out of cell time” were, in practice, significantly shorter than was claimed;
· Youth detainees were de facto penalized by the system, despite their vulnerability, since they were subject to 19 hours lock-downs, whereas convicted and sentenced adult prisoners in other wings of the same prison were subject to a more favourable regime;
· While it is necessary to have completed a number of training and rehabilitation programmes before parole can be granted, there was a shortage of places on such programmes, especially in womens’ prisons. The practical difficulties of managing prisoners’ movements in accordance with the classification system had the effect of impeding some detainees to attend courses and thus prevented them from being released on parole to which they would otherwise have been eligible;
· Significant declines in the overall numbers of recorded offences and prosecutions has not led to a reduction in the prison population. More needs to be done if the ambitious governmental plan to reduce reoffending by 25 % by 2017 is to be achieved. There must be a great focus on programmes of social reintegration, as well as more active involvement with the Māori community, including strengthening indigenous initiatives and developing community-based Māori specific programmes focusing on prevention of reoffending’;
· The department needs to consider the causes of increased prison violence and that its response should take account of both staff and prisoner’s safety, promote a positive prison culture, and include improved communication between staff and prisoners;
· The government needs to do more to intensify its efforts to tackle inter-prisoner violence by addressing its causes, including problems arising from gang cultures, the lack of purposeful activities, substance abuse, restricted out of cell time, as well as through staff training;
· The threshold for admitting detainees with mental health needs to a local hospital is extremely high, partly because of long waiting lists and delays in admissions for those outside the prison system. As a result, detainees who have made multiple suicide attempts as well as those with acute or chronic mental health conditions were not being transferred to appropriate psychiatric facilities and were being held in “at risk units”, often for prolonged periods of time and in conditions akin to that of a disciplinary regime. The denial of qualified psychiatric assistance under such circumstances and in such conditions amounts to ill-treatment;
· Prisoners are often still in their cells until 8.30am and locked up well before 4.30pm , meaning that, in reality, many detainees are in their cells for 18-19 hours per day, and even longer at weekends. There are harmful effects to being held in so strict a regime for many years, especially those held at the Maximum Security facilities in Auckland. Cells were comparatively small (for example, a block of Hastings prison where cells were approximately 2,25 x 2.85 square meters). When combined with the lack of access to an adequate range of activities, such prolonged periods of incarceration in comparatively small cells constitute ill-treatment;
· The meals provided in prison were of low nutritional value, and monotonous. Dinner was served around 15.30, leaving detainees without food until at least 8.30 am of the next day. Priosners complained about the list of items that could be purchased, in particular regarding prices, limited choice and unhealthy items which failed to compensate for the paucity and monotony of the food provided.
· The management cells and yards (for managing prisoners who breach discipline) at Mount Eden prison were in a deplorable hygienic state. The newly built management cells at the Auckland Maximum Security prison (where persons were held in solitary confinement) were extremely small, were under constant video surveillance, afforded little room for internal movement or activity and can best be likened to a tin-can. The so-called ‘exercise yard’ was a small cage situated immediately across the corridor from the cell and afforded no opportunity for ‘exercise’ at all. One person was detained in such a cell for what appears to be an unspecified and open-ended period of time, for security reasons.
· The Committee has grave doubts as to the efficacy of the complaint and appeal mechanisms surrounding the use of these cells. It considered considers the use of these cells for any prolonged period to amount to ill-treatment and wonders whether their use under any circumstances can be other than inhuman or degrading.
· The lack of exposure to sunlight in some cell blocks, meant that prisoners had to be issued with Vitamin D tablets.
Rethinking’s view is that the focus must now be on restoring
New Zealand’s former reputation as a nation that treated it’s prisoners humanely,
and with respect.
Concluding
Comment
Let’s
run a system that does the sick no harm.
[1]
Washington State Institute for Public Policy, ‘Prison, Police, and Programs –
Evidence-based Options that Reduce Crime and Save Money’, (Nov 13)
[2] Department of Corrections, ‘What Works Now? A review and update of research evidence
relevant to offender rehabilitation practices within the Department of
Corrections, December 2009, p.47
[3] Andrews, D. & Bonta, J. (2006) The psychology
of criminal conduct, 4th Edition. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson Publishing Co.
[4] Parhar,
K., Wormith, J., Derkzen, D. & Beauregard, A. (2008). Offender coercion in
treatment: A meta-analysis of effectiveness, Criminal Justice and Behaviour,
35.9, 1109-1135.
[5] Tong,
L. & Farrington, D. (2006). How effective is the “Reasoning and
Rehabilitation” programme in reducing re-offending? A meta-analysis of
evaluations in four countries, Psychology, Crime & Law, 12.1, 3-24.
[6] Department of Corrections, ‘Young People Who Offend’
- http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/756566/YoungPeople.pdf
[7]
Lambie, Ian and Isabel Randell, ‘The Impact
of Incarceration on Juvenile Offenders’ Clinical Psychology Review, Vol 32,
Issue No 1, February 2013 448-459
[8] McNeill,
F.P.RAynor and C. Trotter (2010) ‘Conclusion: Where are we now’ in F. McNeill,
P.Raynor and C. Trotter (ed) Offender
Supervision: New Directions and Theory, Research and Practice, Willan
Publishing: Oxford, p.537
[9] McNeill,
P.538
[10]Coyle,
Andrew (2005) Foreword in A.Liebling and S. Maruna (ed.) ‘The Effects of Imprisonment’ Willan Publishing: Devon, p.xx
[11]
Christie, N. (1978) ‘Prisons in Society or Society in Prison’, in J. Freeman
(ed.) Prisons, Past and Future. London: Heinemann.
[12] Duguid,
S. (2000)Can Priosns Work, The Prisoner as Object and subject in modern
corrections. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press. p.230
[13] Coyle,
Andrew (2005) Foreword, p.xix
[14]
Nightingale, F. (1859) Notes on
Hospitals. London: Parker and Son
[15]
Keve, P.W. (1996) Measuring Excellence: The History of Correctional Standards
and Accreditation. Lanham, MD; American
Correctional Association.
