spinofflive
We spend $1.3b a year on prisons despite a mountain of evidence that says they don’t prevent crime (Image: Getty)
We spend $1.3b a year on prisons despite a mountain of evidence that says they don’t prevent crime (Image: Getty)

The BulletinSeptember 30, 2022

Youth justice facilities an incubator for more offending

We spend $1.3b a year on prisons despite a mountain of evidence that says they don’t prevent crime (Image: Getty)
We spend $1.3b a year on prisons despite a mountain of evidence that says they don’t prevent crime (Image: Getty)

Youth justice facilities are full and are providing a place to plan for offending on “the outside”. It echoes what we know about prisons, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell.

 

“Organising to commit crimes on the outside”

I have heard people who work in the criminal justice system refer to prison as “crime university”. It’s a crude phrase, probably born of years at the coalface, but it’s hard to read a report from Stuff’s Glenn McConnell about youth justice facilities being at capacity and not have it top of mind. Oranga Tamariki’s Shaun Brown said some offending was now the direct result of children connecting with each other at Oranga Tamariki facilities and organising to commit crimes on the outside. Brown is urging MPs not to impose more punitive sentences on youth offenders, saying it would have no deterrent and would likely harden them.

70% reconviction rate within two years of being released from prison 

While these facilities aren’t prisons, Brown’s comments track with new analysis from sociologist Jarrod Gilbert on The Spinoff about the role of prison and its complete failure to deter offending based on reoffending rates. Around 70% of people with previous convictions are reconvicted within two years following release from prison. Gilbert cites former prime minister Bill English, who in 2011 said that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure. The annual cost of the country’s prisons was pegged at $1.3b in March this year. Writing for Stuff about his experience in prison, Tommy Doran says the traits he required to recover from drug and alcohol addiction and quit a life of crime are the same traits that are rejected within our current prison system.

Imprisonment is “an utterly ineffectual tool for reducing crime rates”

It does sometimes feel as if we have two alternate realities operating on the role of punitive sentencing. On one-hand there is the tough on crime rhetoric and on the other, a mountain of evidence and “almost universal agreement by those working in the sector that imprisonment is an utterly ineffectual tool for reducing crime rates”. That’s a line from Newsroom’s Jono Milne in an excellent piece on last week’s crime statistics and the ongoing overrepresentation of Māori within our prison system. Corrections minister Kelvin Davis campaigned on reducing the prison population with a specific focus on reducing the number of Māori in prison. It’s been three years since Hōkai Rangi, Corrections’ flagship strategy aimed at doing that, was launched. Stuff’s Laura Walters has accessed its successes and failures.

Head of corrections believes we can have safe society without prisons

The problem with crime, as Alice Snedden notes in the latest episode of Bad News, is that it’s emotive. People experience it and fear it. It’s why, as Claire Robinson notes in her book on political campaigning, “tough on crime” gets trotted out during election campaigns. Emotion, however, isn’t empirical. Head of corrections ​​Jeremy Lightfoot told Snedden that he believes we can have a safe society without prisons. He also noted that we’re a long way off that. You do wonder what the road to that “long way off” looks like when evidence keeps on proving to be less sticky than emotion.

Keep going!
A man posts local election voting papers into endangered box (Photo: Troy Rawhiti-Connell)
A man posts local election voting papers into endangered box (Photo: Troy Rawhiti-Connell)

The BulletinSeptember 29, 2022

In defence of postal voting

A man posts local election voting papers into endangered box (Photo: Troy Rawhiti-Connell)
A man posts local election voting papers into endangered box (Photo: Troy Rawhiti-Connell)

Postal voting for local elections might be arcane and ridiculous but mooted alternatives are no silver bullet, writes Anna Rawhiti-Connell in The Bulletin.

 

Early voter turnout figures improve overnight

Yesterday, I decided to look into whether postal voting for local elections was still the go for today’s Bulletin. I went in open-minded. Has this defence been prompted by the discovery that my great uncle (secretary of the Department of Internal Affairs from 1968-1978) was partially responsible for enabling postal voting? No. Will I die on this hill? Probably not. Figures published yesterday by Toby Manhire had a lot of people concerned about low voter turnout. Manhire updated those figures later in the day and things have shifted from dismal to better than 2019 in Christchurch. Obvious caveat –it’s early days –but voter turnout for local elections has always been a bit rubbish when compared with turnout for general elections. The turnout gap between the general election in 1946 and local elections in 1947 was 56.5%.

Mode of voting conversations mask gnarlier issues

This doesn’t mean we should just accept that fact and keep putting paper into more paper and then into a dwindling number of boxes forever. But discussions about the mode of voting mask gnarlier issues like motivation, voting systems and how local government elections are run. Postal voting was used in the 60s and 70s and then adopted across the board for local elections in 1989. It was mooted as a way to address, wait for it, concerns about low voter turnout. In a 2019 very readable report on online voting, AUT political scientist Julienne Molineaux argues average voter turnout figures mask variances in elections. Things like an exciting race, or indeed a dull one.

Call for the return of polling days

We used to have polling days like we do with general elections and the Porirua and Hutt City mayors have called for a return to a set day to cast your local election votes. I will always be a fan of anything that gets us closer to Australia’s democracy sausage incentives but it would cost more to run elections that way. Covid measures and two referendums notwithstanding, the 2020 general election cost $160m to run. It would also very likely require the running of local government elections to be centralised, something the Justice Select Committee has recommended the government consider. As Toby Manhire writes, repeated inquiries have resolved that turnout, participation and representation in local elections would be enhanced if the Electoral Commission was running them but that’s off the table for now.

Why can’t we vote online?  

Justin Hu has done a great job on Newsroom of wading through all the possible solutions offered up to counter low voter turnout and voter apathy. Based on what he’s found, there doesn’t seem to be a silver bullet to lifting voter turnout. That includes online voting, which is laden with security risks, cost and potential inequality. We actually have a handy summary of Molineaux’s 2019 report on online voting on The Spinoff. Hu also spoke to Molineaux who said the focus on online voting in 2016 and 2019 diverted resources from strategies to better engage with harder-to-reach communities. We have deployed a strategy of sorts to reach typically younger, perhaps less engaged voters on TikTok. His name is Josė Barbosa and he explains the foreign concept of paper and the practice of putting it in a box for us in this minute long video.