RECAP Newsletter

Issue 42: July 2008                                             

Anti Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) - Tough on Children – Tough on the Causes of Children

During her recent visit to New Zealand, Baroness Vivien Stern spoke of how society creates criminals. In an address to the 25th Anniversary Prison Fellowship Conference , she included reference to the impact of ASBOs on the UK community. Here is the extract:

“Here is another way of creating criminals – an anti-social behaviour order. An anti-social behaviour order is an order made under a civil process that stops people going to certain places and doing certain things, mainly disadvantaged children who need special education and don’t get it.

One 13 year-old had 60 prohibitions, including not to throw eggs at the public and not to swear in public places. Eddie Jones, a homeless alcoholic who was sent to prison for a year (a 12-month sentence) because the day he came out of prison where he had served a sentence for breaching an anti-social behaviour order he went to a pub in the centre of Wrexham for a drink. He is banned from going to city centre pubs. The judge said that at least he would have a bed in prison. She had no option but to send him to prison, she said.

What are we doing?

So what are we doing here? We are filling the crime category with people whose acts can indeed be defined as criminal, but which should in fact be defined as manifestations of some social distress. And we create new crimes to absorb all the socially annoying or uncomfortable acts that people engage in.”

This week’s newsletter takes a closer look at ASBOs and their impact on young offenders. It confirms Vivien Stern’s view that:

……..crime control is impacting substantially on people with problems that society has failed to deal with. Children from care are highly over- represented in prison. The care system failed. Children who did not go to school are highly over-represented in prison. The education system failed. Women who have been abused and ill-treated to the point of trying to kill themselves are over-represented in prison. The mental health services failed. We are choosing to punish many people whom life has already punished severely in other ways. Link to Vivien Stern’s address by clicking here

A couple of months ago, there was a flurry of interest in ASBO’s – the Rotorua District Council indicated an interest in their introduction, and NZ First was also in favour. What are they? How do they work? Are they effective?

Click to read this week’s newsletter “ ASBOs – Tough on children – tough on the causes of children”


Developing a Comprehensive Strategy for Children and Young People

What is it that makes some nations more effective than others, in developing a are comprehensive and effective strategy for meeting the needs of children and young people, and keeping the level of offending by children and young people to a minimum?

One aspect of the context in which young people live is the level of support provided to families by the government. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development has collected data from 2003 (see below) which shows that New Zealand spends far less than the OECD average on family services such as childcare, early education facilities, assistance for young people, residential facilities and home help services for families in need.

Download Chart

The Organised and Financial Crime Agency – what’s going on?

Government’s decision to can the Serious Fraud Office and establish the Organised and Financial Crime Agency, was treated with some scepticism. NZ First’s Law and Order Spokesperson, Ron Mark, sought assurances that the new agency would not deviate from their responsibilities and will use the extra resources to investigate fraud and commercial fraud in addition to organised crime. (NZ First Media Release – 11 September 07)

He must have known something. The NZ Herald in an article, “Fraud Detectives’ Powers slashed” – 2 April 08 pointed out that the Squad could currently require suspects to answer questions and surrender confidential documents – there was no right of silence. The new legislation will require the agency to make an application before a judge.

An assurance from the Minister of Police was insufficient. The former head of the Serious Fraud Squad, David Bradshaw, will not be silenced, and his trenchant criticism of the proposed legislation constitutes something of an embarrassment to government. The media release “Former SFO Director says King wrong about agency powers” NZPA 23 July 08, would we think, stimulate a rigorous review of the proposed law. It would seem that Ron Mark was right, in seeking assurance that the new agency is “able to meet their responsibilities for investigating commercial fraud perpetrated against ordinary citizens”

In the meantime, at least two of the top operators from the former Serious Fraud Office have resigned, further weakening our capacity to investigate white collar crime. Is this a case of one law for the rich, one for the poor. Let’s not forget who the victims of corporate fraud are.

© 2008 PFNZ,  All rights reserved