A suggestion by the Minister of Corrections, that prisoners should be granted conjugal visits, has received the public dismissal it deserved. But he did not deserve the roasting he undoubtedly has received from his political companions. The frosty tones of the Prime Minister and the Alliance Party leader as they distanced themselves from the idea were a mere hint of the tongue-lashing Matt Robson would have weathered in private. It is standard practice in party politics. Ministers think aloud at the Government's peril.
Need it be so? It is not necessary to agree with Mr Robson's suggestion to see some value in raising it. Penal policy is designed to both punish and rehabilitate. It may be that conjugal visits could help prisoners maintain relationships during a sentence and make it more likely they have somewhere to go on release. But the benefit can be exaggerated. Sexual contact will usually be of more interest to the prisoner than to the visitor in the best conditions the Department of Corrections can provide. And normally not as crucial as other aspects of the relationship in determining whether it survives the sentence.
The minister also wondered aloud whether the children of female prisoners should be accommodated inside the walls, too. He acknowledged it would be unhealthy for any children to come to regard a prison as home. The Commissioner for Children, in his turn, wondered aloud whether the idea was motivated by more concern for female inmates than for the welfare of the children.
But the real objection to Mr Robson's proposals arises from the constant concern that the punitive purpose of imprisonment will be forgotten. If conjugal visiting became permitted, even encouraged, the prison service would come under enormous pressure to provide pleasant surroundings for it. One penal reformer, Peter Williams, QC, cites Holland where prisons have facilities "like a motel" for the purpose, he says. That is exactly what many fear prisons will become unless well-meaning ministers of corrections are reminded that crime is supposed to be punished.
A more timid minister who wanted his department to investigate the practicality of conjugal visits would have said nothing about it until, and unless, he was ready to present a solid proposal. Even then, he would put it to his party and coalition partners in private first. Mr Robson is obviously more candid. He aired his idea in fairly raw form knowing it would be contentious but believing instinctively that the public had a right to know his thinking. It is an instinct to be encouraged.
But the public has a part to play, too. It is one thing to disagree vehemently with the suggestion, it is another thing to mark down the minister and the Government for making it. Mr Robson was flying a kite, as more interesting politicians do. He might have taken greater care to emphasise that the idea was purely his own and could face a battle for the cabinet's support. But he did not deserve the diatribe in some quarters which decided that his sort of soft liberalism would be the Government's downfall. That is precisely the response that causes party leaders to crack down and politicians to clam up.
The coalition's stocks are still high even if Mr Robson's party is languishing. There seems no urgent reason for the coalition leaders to take a dim view of the minister's kite. It is time heads of Government found a way to acknowledge ideas from within their ranks without necessarily endorsing them. Surely a way can be found by a new Government still comfortably positioned in the polls and supposedly blessed with exceptional intellectual prowess.
Matt Robson initiated a good, useful public discussion during last week. He did not carry the day but he forced many to think about an issue that raises all the difficulties of balancing punishment and rehabilitation. He should not be discouraged.
<i>Editorial:</i> No, but it's good of him to ask
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.