Probation officers call penal policy review ideas ‘inadequate’

Press, 18 March 1982, Page 21

Probation officers call penal policy review ideas ‘inadequate’

From the Christchurch branch of the N.Z. Association of Probation Officers.

The Penal Policy Review Committee’s report on penal policy in New Zealand is the first attempt in this country to produce a coherent and rational policy. It is a pity then that it has fallen short of its aim and has not produced the type of policy that is desperately needed.

The review committee apologises for the haste in which the report was prepared and admits that there may be shortcomings in the “presentation.” .It is apparent, however, that the content has also suffered. New Zealand deserved better than having this important process being hampered by time limits. It says, “The time limit imposed prevented detailed attention” to the expression of the report. Where the report makes only general recommendations there is a real danger of the policies being formulated by bureaucrats.

There are a number of positive aspects to the report. Its philosophy is to lessen the use of imprisonment as a punishment and the recommended criteria set out for imprisonment are to be commended. There are a number of other positive elements and its intention that new community-based sanctions should be introduced cannot be criticised. These sentences, including

probation, were long overdue for an overhaul. But in this area the weakness of the report is apparent. Many of its recommendations are based on the assumptions and perceptions of the committee. Most obvious is its assumption that the community can be, and is willing to be, more involved in the criminal justice system. It says: “It is therefore essential for the community to be involved in institutional life, and ideally the prison will be seen as part of the local community.” One could add. not altogether facetiously. “like the local school or comer dairy.” Ideally also, there should not be criminals.

The committee expects volunteers to provide educational services to prisoners, and states that “public and community participation will be central to any commun-ity-based scheme.’-’ Volunteers are to be used in the recommended supervision orders, and in the new Community Care Order. During imprisonment and after release of prisoners", volunteers are to be used so that the inmate can be "fitted back into the community of his choice, in conjunction with caring people from who he can derive strength during the difficult period of readjustment into society.”

Hard-nosed workers in the field would consider that the review's perception of the community's attitude to prisoners is unrealistic. Somewhat contradictorily the review committee elsewhere states: “While public opinion and expectations are notoriously difficult to gauge, it would be unrealistic and damaging to the credibility of our penal system to ignore the current accceptance of imprisonment, coupled with the belief that lengthy terms are appropriate for some types of offending.” It is thought that the review committee's perception of the community’s and volunteers’ willingness to be involved is too optimistic by far. Probation officers believe that there is room for the tapping of more potential from the community and are always attempting to do this.

That the review committee’s assumption is misplaced is indicated by other agencies’ (e.g. Birthright's) publicised difficulty in attracting volunteers. Perhaps another indication of the public’s interest in penal reform is the response to the large coverage given by "The Press” on two consecutive days last month. This prompted one letter to the Editor, and that a reactionary one.

It seems that involving the community more could be a cost-saving exercise, though the committee warns that it may be necessary for the Justice Department “to adopt a realistic approach to the funding of voluntary agencies and the purchase of other services in the community.” It may cost more in the short term to lessen the incidence of imprisonment in order to save money in the long term. It is difficult to imagine, in these straitened times, any government spending more money on long-term worthwhile goals.

The chance to produce a coherent rational penal policy has been frittered away and it is unfortunate that for various reasons the Penal Policy Review Committee’s report is inadequate for this country's present needs. The cynic might say that it is fashionable to attack reports of this kind. Obviously they can't please everybody. But the cynic’s belief is strengthened by a .reaction to one portion of the 'report. Arguing cogently and highlighting present inconsistencies, the review committee, with one dissenter, strongly recommends that prisoners be allowed to vote. The Prime Minister has been reported as saying that this is not his party’s policy.