Crime and Punishment

Crime totally sucks for the direct victims, and for society. It leaves us feeling violated and vulnerable, makes us weary of investing in economically productive activities, and keeps communities chained to a vicious cycle of unemployment and poor parenting (see above). But punishment also sucks. "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" say the talk radio masses. Do you have any idea how much that actually costs? A report from 2009 noted that each prison cell built under the Labour Government (which got tough on crime to keep voters happy) cost taxpayers $643,000. Even under the new government's 'no-frills' plan, they're only dropping the cost by half (which we know won't happen in the end as costs invariably blow out with these sorts of things). So for every 100 extra people you chuck in jail, we have to pay between $32 and $64 million, not to mention the year-on-year expenses! To house another 100 crims! The talk radio trope then quickly moves to 'well if its so expensive, shoot them' which is a hilarious proposal. I mean, no industrialized democracy could possibly let the state kill people, right?

Maybe, just maybe, we need to revisit the whole 'crime' thing and find some better answers both as to causes and treatment. Hey, they might even be a hell of a lot cheaper! I'm not talking hiring people to hug rapists because their mummy didn't hug them enough, I'm talking about serious ways to reduce the burden on society of low-grade crims. If we take the easy way out and admit that all or most criminals are 'evil by nature and unreformable', we're pretty much fucked. Crime breeds more crime, and by the way the New Zealand's prison population in growing, before long we'll be exporting the stuff. (We’re probably already exporting it to Australia).

Sadly, if there is one thing that electorates can't resist, it's a good old 'I mean, society's going to the dogs, we need to get tough on law and order' appeal by a politician. Can nobody see this is a hackish trope calculated to produce exactly the response that you then provide? Are you that trusting of politicians' intentions? Surely not. Surely you realize that economic change of the sort our country has experienced over the past four decades, increasing rapidly over the past two, is always accompanied by new pressures in society? Do you really want to go back to the 1950s when there was 'no crime' (false), 'everyone was well behaved' (also false, it's just that you were mates with the local cop), 'people left their doors unlocked' (so what) and 'kids respected their elders' (if by that you mean quietly followed their example of binge drinking, domestic violence and drunk driving)? It's inevitable that times past acquire a rosy patina as memories fade, that's natural and human. But you also forget how regimented that society was, how the government had it's hand right up the arse of every sphere of economic life, taxing the shit out everything while preventing you from buying decent Japanese cars and drinking lattes.

To believe that we can a) turn back the clock and b) retain only everything 'good' that the ticking clock has given us is just bullshit pure and simple. We're in new times with new pressures and new challenges to overcome. Let's have a scrap of new thinking to go with it please.

Oh, and The Sensible Sentencing Trust is poorly named. Very poorly named. On an unrelated note, the novel 'Crime and Punishment' is probably very good. I haven't read it though.