Community wants safety: with or without ‘mega prison’
The community - the so law called “law and order votes” - just want safety, with or without ‘mega prison’, or prisons, for that matter.
The debate on New Zealand’s criminal penal system is back with new government heading into its first major challenge of signing off on a $1 billion mega prison – a situation that many experts believe to be tough for the new government.
The challenge for the new government will be to choose between Labour Party’s pre-election promises of reducing prison population considerably, and fulfilling its genuine responsibility of keeping people safe.
Indeed politics of prison is tough, so is the intellectual debate around shaping of NZ’s criminal penal system, with opinions always divided around the merit of tougher punishment and sending people to prisons.
The suggestions of sending people to prison are relatively treated as “socially regressive” and in “poor taste” by the brigade of modern progressive politics.
And this often comes at the cost of contempt, if not peril, of those who are at the forefront of dealing with the consequences of decisions involved in the criminal penal system – the communities.
It’s another matter that those who lead the progressive debate around the criminal penal system are often not at the forefront of bearing consequences around efficiency or relative inadequacy of the criminal penal system.
In intellectual debates, sometimes communities are referred to as “law and order votes.”
Although there is not much description of these “law and order votes,” of who they are, what they do for a living and why they expect tougher punishments for those who repeatedly rob them or worse assault them, and then walk away easily in front of their eyes.
But they are portrayed in public imagery as the ones who fail to understand the promise that progressive politics around prisons tend to offer.
It is suggested that these so-called “law and order votes” are the one that hampers the genuine progression and advancement of New Zealand society towards a more progressive state where prisons can be discarded eventually.
What is often forgotten or disregarded is the fact that the communities or the law and order votes just want safety, with or without prisons.
The responsibility lies with the academics and experts on criminal justice to prepare a model that works and reduce miseries of those who are compelled to live and work in an environment where crimes like robbery and aggravated assault are almost becoming normal, then exceptions.
The small businesses like dairy shops, superettes and mini-marts, who often operates long hours, sometimes in complete isolation, are often the most vulnerable communities experiencing petty crimes.
They are often appearing less intellectually-inclined towards promises offered by advocates of a softer criminal penal system.
However, it does not make them any less inclined towards a more peaceful, just, stable and safe society.
The problem is not in the desperation of these communities expecting a safer living and working environment but in the relative vagueness of the academic suggestion of reducing prisoners in New Zealand.
The suggestions of social remedies to tackle the underlying causes of offending – such as poverty, poor education outcomes, unemployment, and mental health and addiction issues – are indeed welcome and needed.
However, they should not be offered at the cost of abandoning the tougher criminal penal system.
There is a reason for carrot and stick theory of motivation in place.
Ideally, one should not be advocated on the cost of the other.
Regardless of the discussion above, the government will soon be facing the call of balancing between carrot and stick theory of motivation.
The message for them is that communities want to be safe, with or without prison.
The community - the so law called “law and order votes” - just want safety, with or without ‘mega prison’, or prisons, for that matter.
The debate on New Zealand’s criminal penal system is back with new government heading into its first major challenge of signing off on a $1 billion mega prison – a...
The community - the so law called “law and order votes” - just want safety, with or without ‘mega prison’, or prisons, for that matter.
The debate on New Zealand’s criminal penal system is back with new government heading into its first major challenge of signing off on a $1 billion mega prison – a situation that many experts believe to be tough for the new government.
The challenge for the new government will be to choose between Labour Party’s pre-election promises of reducing prison population considerably, and fulfilling its genuine responsibility of keeping people safe.
Indeed politics of prison is tough, so is the intellectual debate around shaping of NZ’s criminal penal system, with opinions always divided around the merit of tougher punishment and sending people to prisons.
The suggestions of sending people to prison are relatively treated as “socially regressive” and in “poor taste” by the brigade of modern progressive politics.
And this often comes at the cost of contempt, if not peril, of those who are at the forefront of dealing with the consequences of decisions involved in the criminal penal system – the communities.
It’s another matter that those who lead the progressive debate around the criminal penal system are often not at the forefront of bearing consequences around efficiency or relative inadequacy of the criminal penal system.
In intellectual debates, sometimes communities are referred to as “law and order votes.”
Although there is not much description of these “law and order votes,” of who they are, what they do for a living and why they expect tougher punishments for those who repeatedly rob them or worse assault them, and then walk away easily in front of their eyes.
But they are portrayed in public imagery as the ones who fail to understand the promise that progressive politics around prisons tend to offer.
It is suggested that these so-called “law and order votes” are the one that hampers the genuine progression and advancement of New Zealand society towards a more progressive state where prisons can be discarded eventually.
What is often forgotten or disregarded is the fact that the communities or the law and order votes just want safety, with or without prisons.
The responsibility lies with the academics and experts on criminal justice to prepare a model that works and reduce miseries of those who are compelled to live and work in an environment where crimes like robbery and aggravated assault are almost becoming normal, then exceptions.
The small businesses like dairy shops, superettes and mini-marts, who often operates long hours, sometimes in complete isolation, are often the most vulnerable communities experiencing petty crimes.
They are often appearing less intellectually-inclined towards promises offered by advocates of a softer criminal penal system.
However, it does not make them any less inclined towards a more peaceful, just, stable and safe society.
The problem is not in the desperation of these communities expecting a safer living and working environment but in the relative vagueness of the academic suggestion of reducing prisoners in New Zealand.
The suggestions of social remedies to tackle the underlying causes of offending – such as poverty, poor education outcomes, unemployment, and mental health and addiction issues – are indeed welcome and needed.
However, they should not be offered at the cost of abandoning the tougher criminal penal system.
There is a reason for carrot and stick theory of motivation in place.
Ideally, one should not be advocated on the cost of the other.
Regardless of the discussion above, the government will soon be facing the call of balancing between carrot and stick theory of motivation.
The message for them is that communities want to be safe, with or without prison.
Leave a Comment