Rejecting the soft option on crime

A speech to the Salvation Army's National Congress, Wellington

As Minister of Courts and of Corrections, my job is to be effective at stopping crime.

That means stopping criminals.

Well it seems to me that a good place to start is by having a look at the criminal. Who is this shadowy figure?

It's a rough method, but if we crunch the figures to find the 'average' criminal, here's the picture:
The typical criminal who fronts up in the dock at your local court is a 27 year-old male, he's unemployed with low self-esteem, there's a good chance he's functionally illiterate, and has a history of drug and alcohol dependence, and of violence.

So how are we going to stop him wreaking havoc in our communities?

We constantly hear one answer- get hard.

Let me get one thing clear: I believe we should deal strongly with the people who break our laws and harm our families and communities.

But catching and punishing criminals is the easy first step.

And stopping at that first step is another slap in the face for vicitms, because if we stop there we will fail to prevent crimes in the future.

To deal effectively with the problem of criminal offending it is vital that the public debate is lifted to an informed level. That has not happened in New Zealand and the blame lies largely with politicians.

Not wanting to be labelled "soft" on crime, some politicians insist on promoting an atmosphere of intimidation around this topic.

Their hard pose is, in fact, intellectual bullying which avoids the hard questions.

Any person who insists on an intelligent discussion of this topic based on facts is described as a "friend of the crim", as soft.

Well it is actually "soft in the head" to continue with that approach. What we need to discuss is not what is "soft" or "hard" but what works.

It is essential that all New Zealanders join with the Government to discuss ways of tackling crime.

And it is vital that people like yourselves, who understand crime and justice, continue to help build an informed debate on the pressing problems we face.

And that is why I am so rapt to be here today.

Because Government needs to work with all the people and agencies dedicated to working with both offenders and victims.

Your work in our courts is tough in a way these soft-headed politicians could never understand.

I know of your work helping to organise diversion referrals. Your work dealing with offenders with drug and alcohol problems. The practical and emotional help you offer people going through the court system.

And beyond that I know of the work you do in alleviating the poverty that has deepened through a decade and a half of soft-headed economic and social policy - policy which, like soft-headed crime policy, failed to address the hard questions.

We are backing the mission that you carry, and I was grateful for the message from Commissioner Kendrew that the purpose of this lunch is to restate your mission and to reassure the Government of your willingness to be involved.

I thank you for that from my heart.

Closing of the gaps is not just for Maori and Pacific Island people but for the whole of our society.

Obviously not all crime is caused by poverty. There are people who for a bewildering array of reasons want to cause mayhem or to take what is not theirs.

But we all know that many people are driven by social and economic despair to break the law. In fact they are driven to a point where they simply have no loyalty to the wider society.

I'm sure the politicians who make knee-jerk tough-on-crime calls would like to see shoplifters locked in chains breaking rocks. But the rocks that need breaking are the ones in their heads.

You have to have rocks in your head to say that we can deal with this problem with simple sloganeering.

You have to have rocks in your head to believe we can tackle crime without intervention in a society at risk.

None of that excuses crime. None of that means we should not deal strongly with the people who harm our families and communities.

The current Sentencing Review is dealing with the whole range of sentences from community service and fines right up to indefinite prison sentences.

Reducing prison numbers can only happen if we:
1 - Stop so many people being sent to prison needlessly;
2 - Deal effectively in prisons with changing behaviour; and
3 - Build successful reintegrative programmes for the day when prisoners are released.

All of that is social invesment. But if we don't invest in that we'll have to keep investing in prisons as the only non-solution available.

We need to keep violent and dangerous offenders inside, and we need to make room for them by not squandering our prison resources by cluttering up the system non-violent offenders who may be more effectively dealt with targeted punishments and programmes beyond he prison walls.

We're looking for better ways. Otherwise we're just incarcerating our social problems.

Incarcerating social problems is Act's housing policy, their policy to tackle poverty - just lock it up out of sight.

We are not prepared to take such a soft option.