By John Whitty, National Director New Zealand Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society
The total number of crimes, across all categories of crime recorded by the New Zealand police, for 2005 is the lowest since 1983.
However, this good news should be tempered with the knowledge that the more serious violence and sex crimes increased sharply during the 1990s and are being maintained at high levels.
Serious violent/sexual offenders constitute about 40 percent of the prison population at any one time and it is the increase in the sentences imposed for these offences that accounts for much of the increase in the prison population. The Bail Act 2000 provided wider grounds for remanding in custody. Similarly the Sentencing Act 2002 and Parole Act 2002 mean that longer prison sentences are imposed and a greater proportion of sentences are served in prison.
The Department of Corrections 2004/05 Annual Report records that the New Zealand imprisonment rate is 164 per 100,000 of population, which is double the rate that applied in 1980 and well above those countries with which we like to compare ourselves: namely Australia, Canada, England and Wales. On 11 April 1997 there were 4,988 prisoners. On 18 April 2006 there were 7,662 prisoners - an increase of 54 percent.
Not only have sentences increased generally, but there has also been an increase in those sentenced to very long sentences. It is no surprise that the Department is making plans for an increase in the number of very elderly prisoners, with all the additional health requirement that entails.
The Department of Corrections estimates that it costs $161.91 per day for each prisoner. This works out at $59,097 per year and so the extra prisoners are costing many millions of dollars extra. The Department’s Annual Report also shows that since 2000/01 the expenditure on new prisons and expanding existing prisons has cost over $378 million, and during the current year expenditure of $352 million is budgeted; this does not include maintenance of existing prisons. Are we getting value for money when the re-imprisonment rate is about 29 percent after 12 months and 37 percent after 24 months following release?
If we want to avoid an escalation in prison numbers then it is important that the debate is not dominated by the “get tough on crime” argument and punitive populism. However, it is important to recognise that the majority of offenders in prison are there for serious offences. Any paper looking at how to reduce the prison population will need to address prevention as well as alternatives to custody in prison and measures that reduce the likelihood of prisoners re-offending and returning to prison after release.
If we want to prevent serious offending, we need to interrupt the trajectory to serious and chronic adult offending by what is really a very small group of male offenders who become multiple recidivist (repeat) offenders. I can do no better than refer readers to the excellent Department of Corrections publication: “About Time – Turning People Away from a Life of Crime and Reducing Re-offending” (May 2001).
As well as the preventative measures outlined in this report, there are also alternatives to remanding people in prison. Bail hostels, home detention and electronic monitoring are examples. Expanding the use of home detention for sentenced offenders is also an alternative to prison. While home detention has come under some criticism, the fact is that home detention is the most effective intervention for both back-end (when someone is released to serve the remainder of their sentence near the end of their prison term) and front-end releases (serving the sentence on home detention from the beginning). Back-end releases on home detention had a re-imprisonment rate of only 10 percent within 12 months, while the average for all prisoners is 29 percent.
Other alternatives to prison include use of non-prison residential programmes for young offenders (aged 14-17 years) and serious violent and sexual offenders; work schemes; part-time imprisonment; and drug, alcohol and other treatment programmes. All of these measures could help reduce the New Zealand prison population.
Emphasis must also be placed on pre- and post-release programmes to help offenders’ reintegration into the community. I have put forward some ideas on how New Zealand can reduce its burgeoning prison population. NZPARS suggests that the nettle should be clutched and that a high level task force be formed to address this whole question.
This is an excerpt from John’s November 2005 paper “How to reduce the New Zealand Prison Population”. The full paper and more general information can be obtained from NZPARS website: www.pars.org.nz.