RECAP Newsletter
Issue 52: December 2008
This is our last newsletter for 2008. Our first 2009 newsletter will appear in February
Crime as Social Harm – the ‘It’s Not OK’ Campaign
A prison cell, in which one waits, hopes ... and is completely dependent on the fact that the door of freedom has to be opened from the outside, is not a bad picture of Advent.
Dietrich
Bonhoeffer,
German pastor and philosopher (1906-1945) imprisoned and executed for
his attempt to overthrow Adolf Hitler
Successful Crime and Justice Initiatives - 2008
Last week Rethinking was asked what it considered to be the most successful criminal justice initiative in 2007. Being the last Rethinking Newsletter for 2008, we set out to identify an initiative that “made a difference “ to families and victims in the arena of criminal justice...
The Winner for 2008 - Campaign for Action on Family Violence –“It’s Not OK”
Beyond Criminal Justice to Addressing Social Harm
The success of the Campaign for Action on Family Violence, raises an important issue – how adequate are the tools of ‘criminal justice’ and the concept of ‘crime’ in the development of a society in which everyone should benefit from justice, safety, economic and social security. We are constantly told that the criminal justice system is failing and needs reforming...
Successive governments have significantly underestimated the scale of failure of the criminal justice system, and when the true scale of victimisation of serious offences such as child abuse and sexual assaults are acknowledged, it is clear that the criminal justice system will never have anything but a marginal impact.
The real challenge involves giving up on the hopeless attempts to drive up criminal justice performance and seek a much broader array of solutions than the criminal justice system can ever deliver.
Read more on:
Addressing Social Harm
The Strength of a ‘Social Harm’ approach
Comment
Rethinking's comment
Where to From Here?
Rethinking would recommend that in 2009, we identify major social harm, and take three steps:
‘Least Restrictive Outcome’ in legislation since at least 1952
In an article in the NZ Herald, ( 4 Dec 08 ), “Convictions on rise but
number in jail dips”
It was reported that the
number of
people being convicted in
Sensible Sentencing Trust said the statistics are a direct result of the Sentencing Act 2002, which states that judges must "impose the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances".
Wrong. The “least restrictive” provision has been in the legislation since at least 1952, and is a well established legal principle. It is there to ensure that any sentence imposed is proportionate to the seriousness of the offence. It is there to promote rational thinking, and to curb sentencing which is vindictive and excessive.
It has not had had any impact on a reduction in the number of prison sentences since 2002, as claimed by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. It is more likely that the judiciary has chosen to use community based sentences more frequently. Community based sentences are a cheaper option than prison, and are shown to be more effective in the reduction of long term reoffending.
End of the Year Quiz - What do
© 2008 PFNZ, All rights reserved