Sensible Sentencing Trust spokesman Garth McVicar’s analysis of prisons today:
“Under our present prison policy the inmates are basically running the prison”
Why does anyone take this man seriously?
Archive for the 'crime' Category
The Nats’ private prison scheme just gets worse. As No Right Turn points out prisons would be used to do contract work and prisoners would be forced to be used as cheap labour or lose their parole.
Aside from the fact this would constitute slave labour it would also allow prison companies to undercut other contractors and in doing so depress the labour market and ensure higher unemployment.
Of course one of the main drivers of crime is unemployment so one could argue National has developed the perfect self-sustaining system in which nobody loses.
Well, except for prisoners, workers, small firms and the community at large.
National’s announcement that it plans to privatise the prison system says a lot about the party’s underlying values. Say what you like about National’s temporary flip-flops, underneath they haven’t changed a bit.
Whether it’s ACC, privatising assets, drafting electoral law or reforming the Resource Management Act, the National Party stands for entrenching private power at the expense of the public in nearly every sphere of life.
Now, as in the 1990s, National believes that even the sharp end of state power, the prison system, should be wrenched from public control and handed over to private corporations driven by the profit motive.
As a very basic principle for anyone on the Left, the thought of putting money on bodies in a cell and paying stockholders for those bodies is an affront to human dignity. As with the police and the judiciary, coercive power should be the monopoly of democratically accountable public institutions, not private companies.
But even on a more practical level, private prisons simply don’t make sense. Does anyone seriously believe that powerful corporations with a direct profit motive in a high prison population and repeat customers will have an interest in rehabilitation?
The reality is private prisons, like any other outsourced provider, only make money by cutting corners where it really matters. The record of private prisons in the United States is overwhelmingly one of low wages, poor training and prisoner abuse.
In fact, the firm the last National government contracted to run private prisons in NZ was none other than the infamous Wackenhut, which has since changed its name to GEO Group, so damaged is its reputation. Especially for young people, Wackenhut has become a byword for inmate abuse after a series of high profile stories of rape and brutalisation.
The Corrections Corporation of America, another likely bidder for New Zealand’s prison services, has had similar problems resulting from low pay, lack of training and poor treatment of prisoners. PBS recently reported the following story about a CCA facility:
One night in 2004, a major prisoner riot blazed through Crowley. Some of the overwhelmed guards ran away and outside law enforcement had to put down the uprising. A state report later found that the facility was not fully staffed, and didn’t follow fundamental security measures. Inmates were angry over bad food and inappropriate use of force. Low pay contributed to a high staff attrition rate…and in an industry where years on the job can literally teach you how to save lives… newly-hired, inexperienced staff were left to deal with an explosive mix of inmates from three different states.
According to one expert, “the problems that were identified in the wake of that riot are typical of the private prison industry and happen over and over again.”
Don’t be fooled into thinking National’s plan to privatise our prison system is in any way “fresh thinking” for a “brighter future”. Like the rest of their programme, National’s corrections policy is the same old ideological formula: remove control from the public sphere so the private sector can profit. Whether it works or even violates fundamental principles of human dignity and democracy is beside the point.
So, you’re talking with someone about politics and they say something really dumb and wrong and you know it’s wrong but you don’t have the arguments and facts at your fingertips to make a decisive point. That’s where our election series, The Standard line, comes in. The info you need in bite-size form. Today, crime:
Points:
- Crime is down. When Labour came to power, there were 1200 offences reported per 10,000 people, each year. Now there are 1000.
- There were 8,000 fewer crimes in total reported last year than 1999 and 25,000 more were solved.
- The crime figures we hear about are only reported crimes. The evidence is that reporting of crime is up because of public awareness campaigns and because cell-phones making reporting crimes immediately easier. We know two types of crimes that always have nearly 100% reporting - homicides and burglaries (you can’t claim insurance if you don’t report a burgulary to the Police). Homicides are down 10% per capita, burglaries are down 18%.
- reported violent crime is up but the experts say this is due to higher reporting of family violence. The number of violent street crimes actually fell 1% last year. Reported violent offences were up 30%. Think about it: is it credible that violence within families actually went up that much in one year for no reason even while homicides and street violence went down? No.
-Family violence has long been under-reported and in the last year there has been a strong campaign to get people to report family violence - that is the explanation for the increase in reporting.
-The entire increase in violent crimes and sexual crimes since Labour came to power comes from higher reporting of family violence.
-while every violent crime is bad, it is worth noting that there is less than 1 violent crime per 100 people a year.
National has a press release out blaming Labour for a supposed increase in assaults on police. Now, there are more people and more police than ever before, so all things being equal there will be more assaults, but it would be a concern if the rate of assaults had increased. In fact, the rate on assaults per police officer has remained steady for the past decade. While every assault is bad, at least things are not getting worse.
(sources: Police annual reports)
If National really cared about solving problems in our society they would not try mislead us with these pathetic tricks.
The Herald editorial this morning lambastes National’s crime policy as “simply a more extreme version of a policy that has failed this country and others” but Granny Herald consoles herself:
In all likelihood, this is not something that Mr Key will pursue if National wins the election. It is a policy calculated to strike a chord with those who despair of violent crime and particularly horrific murders. As such, it may capture the public’s attention. It can then be put quietly to one side as a more cogent, more flexible approach to sentencing and parole is adopted.
Even the Herald editorial no longer believes that National’s promises would be matched by action in government (incredibly, though, it doesn’t seem to care). As more evidence emerges daily that National’s promises are just a facade hiding their secret agenda, who would believe anything they say?
If he stands true to his principles, National justice spokesman Simon Power will soon be criticising the cost of their proposed new prison.
You’ll note in this story that National proposes to build a prison (for their new reactionary justice policy) at a cost of $314 million. That is $548,951 per bed. Or not far off the $650,000 cost per bed Power criticised Labour for spending on a bed at the new Milburn Prison in Otago and the $585,000 per bed at Springhill he moaned about. Undoubtedly, National’s prison would also come in over budget.
Oops. Will we hear a retraction? Or has National just switched from beating one populist drum to another, not caring whether they’re still playing the same tune?
Fearing a PR disaster over their tax-cut package announcement later this week, National has reverted to type, shedding the moderate facade and proposing a good old fashioned ‘get tough’ crime policy.
National would abolish parole for people convicted of murder who have previously been convicted of a serious violent crime. In the last six years, that would have applied to ten people, five of whom are currently on parole, none of whom, it seems, have reoffended. Under current law, the worst murderers receive non-parole periods that would only see them released in their old age and violent offenders with a strong likelihood of reoffending can be imprisoned permanently on preventative detention. So, hardly earth-shattering stuff from National but a typically unsophisticated, heavy-handed policy. Rather than crafting the best punishment and rehabilitation for individuals, they just want to lock them up and throw away the key.
There would also be no parole for other repeat violent offenders. The increased prison population resulting from that would cost $43 million a year and require another $315 million prison to be built. (forget the ‘cap on bureaucrats too, corrections staff fall under National’s definition of bureaucrats and hundreds more would be needed).
One can understand why National has gone with a policy like this. With the media whipping itself into a grotesque frenzy over violent crimes, abolishing parole for violent offenders is an easy populist policy to run. But if we actually want to reduce the amount of crime in our communities, we need to remove the conditions that create crime. That means getting young men into work and training, giving them a sense of belonging and self-worth - Labour has made exemplary progress on that front and crime has come down 15%. It means nipping substance dependence in the bud - something ike 80% of crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. It means better earlier care for people with mental issues. We need prisons to be about redemption and rehabilitation, not the criminal training grounds they are now - like Johnny Cash says, ‘San Quentin, what good do you think you do?’.
Labour has made some progress in this regard but gone backwards too in trying to out tough National. National clearly has no new ideas; it just wants to put more people in more San Quentins for longer. It seems, once again, that the change we need is Green.
I see National has released a knee-jerk reactionary crime policy this morning, and it’s been reported largely uncritically by a news media that’s made a fortune fostering public fear of crime at a time when crime rates are falling and resolution rates are on the rise.
It’s frankly depressing that our level of public debate has got to this. Hopefully we’ll get something up later today with some proper analysis, but for now I’ll leave it to Johnny Cash. This one goes out to you, Mr Key:
Don’t take it from me. Certainly don’t take it from a National hack, who despite being a professional statistician, is too dishonest to even adjust his stats for population growth. No, listen to the Assistant Police Commissioner explain (in a measured and charmingly earnest tone) the details and meaning of the latest crime stats here.
David Farrar really is a disgusting person at times. He writes that we shouldn’t look at overall crime rates (although he made a big fuss when the overall recorded crime rate went up because of changes in recording practice in 2006). Instead we should just look at violent crime, after all “having 1,000 less [sic] cannabis crimes and 500 more rapes is a net decrease in crime, but would be a worrying trend”. He then goes on to act all shocked over the recorded violent crime stats. First, he’s trying to make you think there are more rapes (in fact, the number is down and he’s hardly one to fret about rape when he’s good mates with a pornographer). Secondly, this professional statistician is deliberately trying to mislead you regarding the change in the crime stats. He knows that the explanation from the professionals is reporting of domestic crime is up but he hopes you don’t.
Crime is down because poverty and the conditions that breed crime have been reduced. At the same time, reporting of crimes is up. Thefts, car thefts, and burglaries (together, the largest group of crimes) have halved in the last ten years. Homicides are down. In fact, all classes of crime are down except two. Recorded violent crime is up because reporting is up. Recorded property damage offences have climbed in the last three years thanks to the moral panic over tagging. But those rises are attributed (not by me, by the Police) to higher reporting.
Farrar needs to misrepresent the statistics to create the impression of a wave of crime where there is none. It’s all part of National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign. It disrespects his readers and the victims of crime. Disgusting.
Crime fell 1% in the last year from 1025 recorded crimes per 10,000 people to 1014. This is part of a pattern that has continued since National was booted from power and living conditions for the poor started to improve. The only big increase after 2000 you see in this graph (05-06) is a result of a change in reporting practice, not the actual level of crime.
Now, I know our right-wing viewers will be up in arms about this. They will point to the fact that recorded domestic violence offences are up as proof that we’re going to hell in a hand basket. But remember, the measure is not ‘crimes’ but ‘recorded crimes’ - crimes have to be discovered (not all crimes are), reported, and recorded to get in the stats. So, reporting levels matter a lot. The evidence the Police have is that it is higher reporting, due to campaigns like ‘it’s not OK’, and better Police practice is behind the increase in the number of reported domestic violent crime. As I have noted previously, homicides are violent crimes that end in death and have a near 100% reporting rate - homicides are down, it would be strange to assume there is more violence but less of it is resulting in death. So, the sensible conclusion is that violent crime is not necessarily occurring more, it is being reported more.
The other point is that it makes sense that crime would be falling. When unemployment is low, people who might otherwise commit crimes have a constructive way to occupy their time and make a living. High unemployment leads to poverty and alienation - a recipe for crime.
[incidentally, as one might expect, all the publicity around tagging seems to be flowing through into higher reporting. Related offences - theft and burglary - continue to fall, and have halved since 1997]
[for Akdnut - murders in Auckland. Note, the number is small 5-21 a year (average 12), so there's a lot of random variation]
I remember the first time I met Simon Power, when he had just come into Parliament. He struck me as a man who would be a future leader of National and an excellent one at that - articulate, informed, and moderate. Oh, what he has let himself become over 9 years in opposition - just another proponent of National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign
Today, Power says “Labour should be ashamed that they’ve left it till six weeks before the election at the end of their third term to do anything much for the victims of crime”. He disses the new Victims’ Charter, website, and 0800 number but what does he propose in addition? Oh yeah, the Victim Compensation Levy that is somehow meant to collect $50 from every convicted criminal and distribute it to help victims with their costs. Yeah, that’s really great; a paltry sum that wil probably cost more to administer than it will raise, that’ll make victims feel better.
The fact is the best thing we can do for the victims of crime is reduce the conditions that lead to crime in the first place. The best things that Labour has done for victims is lead the creation of 350,000 new jobs. Unemployment has dropped by 100,000. Wages, particularly, at the low end, are up sharply. That has seen a huge drop in theft and injected money into depressed communities. More money for education and training has seen more young people with positive options in life. Reducing poverty, economic and social, is the best way to reduce crime.
Labour has done that and crime has come down. Despite the population growing 10% , better Police recording practice, and evidence of higher reporting of crimes, the number of recorded crimes in New Zealand last year was actually 12,000 fewer than in 1999 (and 14,000 more were resolved). Recorded crimes per capita are down 10% since 1999, 25% since the dark days of the early 1990s. [stats 1, 2]
Campaigning for ineffectual charters and impractical levies is all well and good but building a healthier soceity where fewer people choose to commit crimes is what really matters. Labour can be proud of their record, which is based on the ideal that New Zealand can be a kinder, better place to live; would that the Nats believed in this country, rather than always talking it down.
[Update: Turns out an international survey rates NZ the best country in the world for victim support. Power's claims don't stack up; it's just more 'NZ sucks'. Hat-tip, Russell Brown]
Generally, when you buy capital and later sell it, there is no tax payable on any profit. Unless you buy with the propose of selling the capital for a profit. That being the case, your buying and selling of the capital is engaging in an activity to generate income and tax is payable. It is the intention that matters and an evidentiary matter whether or not a capital transaction is made for the purpose of making a profit on the sale of the capital.
So far, so boring. But what this is where it gets interesting: John Key asked a bunch of questions to the Government (the answers to most of which would only have been read by him), he then bought shares in Tranz Rail, met with a prospective buyer, and tried to talk up the share price before selling them just five weeks later. He later stated that he had bought the shares simply to make money. Both the rapidity with which the sale followed the purchase and Key’s statement seem to show that Key bought the shares with the purpose of making a capital profit. That makes it taxable.
So, did he pay the tax?
A series of graphs from the Social Report. First off, the unemployment rate
When the unemployment goes up or down, the practical effect is a decrease or increase in household incomes
as the country got poorer under National, unemployment rose, incomes fell, and and the poverty rate rose, compounded by National’s cut benefits and its choice to let inflation eat up the minimum wage
unemployment, poverty, and growing social inequalities place a society under stress. That increases the likelihood that people will behave in tragic ways.
These things do not just happen and they are not just the actions of ‘evil’ people who deserve punishment; they are social phenomena linked to the health of a society. Full employment and raising incomes for the poor are the best ways to keep our society healthy and reduce such tragic events. Worth keeping in mind when we come to vote.
MSD released its Social Report today, an annual publication that collates a wide variety of standard of living measures, and produces this awesome graph. The circle represents the status quo in 1995-97 each spoke represents a different measure (income, crimes per capita etc). If the spoke is longer than the circle than the measure has improved between 1995-97 and 2005-07; if it is shorter that measure has become worse.
[large version, p138] Nearly every metric shows signficant improvement over living standards a decade ago (obesity is a notable exception).
As you can see the ‘Population with low incomes’ metric has improved dramatically. This metric measures the portion of households with ‘low incomes’ (defined as 60% of the median household income, after housing costs); essentially, it’s the poverty rate. In the mid-90s, 23% of households were in this situation; today the number is 12%. For the first time since the Social Report started in 2001, the figures show a reduction in income equality from a decade ago. The gap between rich and poor grew in the 1990s under National and has decreased under the Left-wing governments. Now, we have finally made up the ground lost under National.
There will be more posts once I’ve had time to read the report in detail. I recommend having a look; it’s an educating read. Nothing in it will stop the Kiwiblog Right claiming living standards in New Zealand are plummeting but then when did they ever let the facts get in the way of a good rant?
This just in from Radio NZ:
Police are investigating a break-in at the electorate office of a senior Labour MP, David Cunliffe, in Auckland.
Nothing was taken in the burglary but Mr Cunliffe’s computer was apparently tampered with.
Mr Cunliffe’s office has confirmed a complaint has been made to the police about the incident.
Meanwhile, National is continuing to accuse Labour of indulging in a “dirty tricks” campaign…
No word from John Key yet on whether the break-in was part of a National Party “dirty tricks” campaign against Labour.
Because, by his own logic, it has to be.
A front page story on Stuff at the moment is about a woman who systematically beat her child and has been successfully prosecuted and placed on home detention.
According to the story the Tauranga mother’s initial excuse was that she was disciplining her child:
When spoken to by police in February, Nelson admitted she sometimes hit her daughter with a fist or open hand with such force that it hurt her hand but said she did so because the girl back-chatted her and had behavioural problems.
Apparently the abuse escalated to holding a knife to the girl’s throat.
If section 59 of the crimes act had not been repealed there’s a good chance this prosecution would have failed. Given it has allowed for home detention, compulsory rehabilitation and the recognition of a drug and alcohol problem this successful prosecution is likely to be in the best long-term interests of the perpetrator as well as her victim.
A loving smack indeed.
ACT is turning to increasingly desperate attempts to win media attention. Raising Roger Douglas from the dead didn’t work (he only got 6 people to come to his latest speech). Now, Heather Roy has named a police informant in Parliament. This pathetic attempt to raise a petty scandal has put the life of the informant in danger and will have a chilling effect on future potential informants. The issue of whether the Police protected the informant when they shouldn’t have ought to have been handled through a non-public inquiry, not Roy’s dangerous grandstanding.
The end result will be to discourage informants, making the Police’s job harder and resulting in more criminals staying free. Good one, Heather.
Michael Laws has called for ‘draconian, central measures’ to fight gangs; he wants the army called out. He wants military force let loose on our streets to engage in combat with an undefined enemy. Where are we? Iraq? That way lies dictatorship, military rule, the end of our freedom.
If we don’t want kids going into gangs and committing petty crimes that sometimes grow into more serious crime, we need to change the conditions that lead them into these lives. These kids are not born bad; they are not evil. They are ordinary human beings, and every human being has a propensity to commit anti-social or criminal acts, for some individuals it is greater than others. That can’t be changed, what can be changed is the conditions that see propensity realised.
Kids from happy homes, from ‘good suburbs’ with good urban design and quality housing, with parents in work, who get a good education, have a decent chance of a good future, and live in communities where people decent incomes rarely commit crimes. It is the poor kids from the poorly built suburbs with the bad schools and no jobs that commit crime. And, mostly, they commit them against other members of those deprived communities.
If we want to stop crime we need to change those communities. And the Labour-led governments have done an excellent job in that regard – more jobs, higher pay for low income people, more money for health and education, Working for Families, more social workers and more cops etc. But the street kids of today had their formative years during the high unemployment, high crime era of the 1990s. The conditions of the 1990s created a generation of poor kids who missed out on a decent childhood, on getting a decent education. Turning the small percentage of them who turn to crime is hard work that needs resourcing.
Making sure the next generation has a better childhood has been Labour’s paramount success, and one the Left can continue to build on. That’s the real solution to reducing the number of criminals on our streets: not creating them.
