Penal policy ‘incoherent’

Press, 9 October 1980, Page 15

Penal policy ‘incoherent’

Government policy on penal reform was a “curious mixture of pessimism r id blind hope,” Dr Warren Young, the director of the Institute of Criminology at Victoria University has said. He told delegates to “the South Island probation conference in Christchurch that existing policy was “fragmented, incoherent, and inconsistent." He elaborated seven “purposes" of penal sanction, ranging from retribution to reparation for the victim. The judicial system had to take into account a diverse set of needs and often ended up trying to be all things to all men, he said. The result was a penal policy that was confused and in conflict. When reform was introduced, it was done in a piecemeal way without trying to relate it to the entire penal and judicial situation. Alternative, non-custodial measures should be considered carefully before being embraced. The Minister of Justice (Mr McLay) and his department had suggested suspended prison sentences but recent examples in Britain had shown that such sentences were sometimes applied to offenders already given probation or fined. When the person reoffended the sentence would be imposed and the over-all pun-

ishment would be greater than would normally be expected. There was much disillusionment with imprisonment at an official level and a clear belief that the answer was to widen the range of alternative non-cus-todial measures. But this belief, was in part, misconceived.

The imposition of imprisonment was determined not by the range of alternatives but by public and judicial attitudes. Until these attitudes changed one could not expect a significant reduction in imprisonment. There was a danger of proliferating non-custodial measures without corresponding changes in attitudes and ending up with new alternatives being used as alternatives to existing alternatives.

The type of sanction imposed had little effect on crime levels. “There is an ethical problem in compulsorily providing assistance to offenders if we are not successful in reducing recidivism” said Dr Young.

In a time of growing pessimism it was important at least to make people realistic about inherent limitations in the present penal system. Any attack on the level of crime could not come from the judicial or penal system.