RECAP Newsletter

Issue 43: August 2008                                             

Policing and the Numbers Game

One of the essential components of any political parties law and order strategy, is a promise to deliver more police, or particularly, more ‘front line’ police. This promise is based on a belief that ‘more police in proportion to the population equals less crime’. Often, the call for more Police is fuelled by the Police Association, which has an important role in promoting the increased health and safety of its members. Advocating for increased levels of staffing. Is seen to be one way of achieving that.

What is not often asked is, ‘what effect does increased frontline police have on crime?” Our guest contributor, Professor Michael Rowe, Institute of Criminology, Victoria University, a specialist in policing theory and operations, concludes that:

• Traditional police patrol make little difference to crime rates, and may in fact increase the level of reported crime;
• There is no proven connection between the number of officers and crime rates;
• The primary traditional crime prevention strategies adopted by modern police have been shown to have little or no effect on crime

Michael Rowe suggests that rather than “more cops on the beat”, modern policing which involves situational crime prevention, problem-oriented policing, intelligence-led policing and similar innovations have made the investigation and the prevention of crime more effective.

Why then, does the call for more frontline police, resonate with the public? Rowe argues that foot patrol and frontline activity is valued because it is symbolic of a peaceable, cohesive society in which police are traditional icons of authority. The public are seeking reassurance, and yearn for a style of policing associated with a certain popular image of policing … the community bobby, whose approach is friendly, familiar and trustworthy’.

Rowe suggests that introducing front line police cannot, in isolation, create or re-create strong cohesive communities in which police are integrated into everyday life. It might be possible for community policing to succeed in ‘difficult’ neighbourhoods if it is done in a sustained way that is integrated into broader efforts from government, local councils, the voluntary sector, and so on, in order that social and economic problems are addressed alongside policing and crime issues.

Click here to read this week’s feature article – Policing and the Numbers Game.

Local Research Shows Community Support for Released Sex Offenders reduces Reoffending Rates

In Newsletter #41, Rethinking emphasised the importance of strengths-based social support for released prisoners, and the willingness of the community and business sectors to engage prisoners and accept them back into the community. Local research has now established that having a sound reintegration strategy for released sex offenders, reduces the likelihood that they will re-offend.

Gwenda Willis, 24, won the Science and our Society category of the 2008 MacDiarmid Young Scientists of the Year Awards, for her study of how pre-release planning affects rates of recidivism in the five years after sex offenders rejoin the community.

Her research is the first published study in New Zealand to show a link between quality of planning for community reintegration and sex offender recidivism. Results showed that, overall, sex offenders with good planning had a six per cent re-offending rate, compared to 17 per cent for those with poor planning. Having a place to live organised when they got out of prison was shown to be particularly important.

"A lot of research in this field has concentrated on changing the attitudes or mind set of offenders but few people have realised the importance of the environment they are being released into," says Gwenda. "My work shows that more careful planning, which is a relatively inexpensive thing to do, can make a real difference providing communities co-operate and help sex offenders make the transition."

Read more click here….

Gwenda’s research suggests that one of the most significant factors is the provision of accommodation and social support. But what happens if the released paedophile is the subject of local mail drops, public notification through an internet sex offender’s website, or plain old fashioned community harassment? Is public notification of sex offenders a useful preventive tool, or is it likely to encourage the offender to ‘disappear from view’ only to re-emerge anonymously in another community, and then to reoffend?

From time to time, there is a call in New Zealand for public registration of sex offenders, community notification, and residential restriction of convicted sex offenders. To our knowledge, seven countries (USA, Australia, Canada, France, Ireland, Japan, and the United Kingdom) have sex offender registration laws, but with the exception of the USA, the period required for registration is usually short and the information remains with the police. The United States is the only country apart from North Korea, with a residential restriction policy.

Research by the Human Rights Watch on the US legislation, reveals that its sex offender registration, community notification, and residency restriction laws are ill-considered, poorly crafted, and may cause more harm than good: In summary:

• The registration laws are overbroad in scope and overlong in duration, requiring people to register who pose no safety risk;

• Under community notification laws, anyone anywhere can access online sex offender registries for purposes that may have nothing to do with public safety. Harassment of and violence against registrants have been the predictable result;

• In many cases, residency restrictions have the effect of banishing registrants from entire urban areas and forcing them to live far from their homes and families.

To read the Human Rights Watch report - click here.

One of the great myths in New Zealand, is that sex offender’s reoffend at a very high rate. In New Zealand, the rate of sexual reoffending amongst all sex offenders (both treated and untreated) is very low - 3% after 36 months follow-up.
http://ccm.corrections.govt.nz/corrnet/research/reimprisonment-report/index.html

The research to date makes it clear – the more sex offenders are the subject of support and accountability strategies for their behaviour, the less likely they are to reoffend.

Offering Hope to Young Offenders

There are two initiatives which are currently making an impact on the youth justice in New Zealand ; the Youth Justice Independent Advisory Group; and “Caught in the Act” , a newsletter co-ordinated by the Principal Youth Court Judge for the Youth Justice Community.

Youth Justice Independent Advisory Group

The Youth Justice Independent Advisory Group (YJ IAG) was established in 2003. It aims to assist in the delivery and implementation of the Youth Offending Strategy 2002, by providing a forum for discussing initiatives and developments in the youth justice sector. The YJ IAG develops independent, community- based advice to Ministers.

The Group also provides feedback on policy and initiatives to ministers and to senior government
officials.

Two of its members, Dr Ian Lambie and Dr John Langley recently published an article “Offer Hope to Young offenders, not a Quick Fix” in the New Zealand Herald on 24 June 2008. For those concerned about youth offending in New Zealand, it presents a clear from two of our experts.

To read the article – click here.

“Caught in the Act”

For those with a close interest in youth justice issues, we would encourage you to subscribe to “Caught in the Act” , published by the Office of the Principal Youth Court Judge. To become an electronic subscriber to the newsletter email Tim Hall or Tracey Cormack, at tim.hall@justice.govt.nz  ,or tracey.cormack@justice.govt.nz

Download a copy of the latest edition of ‘Caught in the Act’

© 2008 PFNZ,  All rights reserved