Editorial: Chief Justice's ideas deserve Govt attention

Opinion

The Chief Justice, Dame Sian Elias, knew that a speech floating the concept of "executive amnesties" to reduce prison overcrowding could be controversial. She was right. As soon as her words were reported yesterday, Justice Minister Simon Power hastily ruled out the idea and pointedly reminded Dame Sian that the Government sets policy and judges apply it. The Sensible Sentencing Trust also condemned the suggestion.

Yet Dame Sian was right to speak out about the endless increase in the prison population and the failure of alternatives, such as community sentences and probation, because of under-resourcing. And she is right to challenge the public, as much as politicians, to consider new approaches that do not fall back on longer sentences, higher jail musters and unsustainable costs of building and running more prisons.

New Zealand's imprisonment rate is higher than comparable countries such as Canada, Britain and Australia and the numbers behind bars here will soon set new records. Yet who feels that longer sentences and more people incarcerated have made the country any more safe or civilised? The cost to taxpayers is vast and growing. In many ways it is, demonstrably, a case of throwing good money after bad.

In her speech to Wellington lawyers, the Chief Justice outlined five areas that needed new thinking and effort: educating the community that imprisonment does not reduce crime and that the causes must be addressed directly; early intervention for those at risk of antisocial and criminal influences; more resources and public support for probation officers; a comprehensive strategy to address mental health issues in crime; and new measures to reduce the prison population.

Her comment on the possibility of executive amnesties to send prisoners into the community and eliminate overcrowding was framed cautiously. "I do not know whether it is practical or politically acceptable, but I think it needs to be considered. We need to look at direct tools to manage the prison population if overcrowding is not to cause significant safety and human rights issues."

Mr Power dismissed that option, but he would have been wise to have looked for the international examples to which our most senior judge alluded. Presumably those released under such amnesties are those very near the end of their sentences and at the lower end of the offending scale.

If the preservation of politicians' independence from the day-to-day activities of the corrections system is Mr Power's concern, then it could be that the department's chief executive, or the Secretary for Justice or even the Chief Ombudsman, could sanction such early releases.

While the amnesty suggestion deserved a headline, other concerns in Dame Sian's speech demand attention. She has the impression that the probation service "is overwhelmed by its case-load, under-resourced to do the job, and insufficiently supported and appreciated in the hard work it does by the public". Our leading judge highlights what ministers know and should be putting right. On community sentences, Dame Sian revealed the chief district court judge had indicated some might be "generating second-stage imprisonment" because so many sentenced to them lack the life skills to fulfil the conditions. "It needs to be asked whether making community-based sentences work effectively requires more resources and community support than we have provided."

Indeed it does. She has raised these issues carefully, deliberately refraining from blaming governments and acknowledging public anxiety about crime but also challenging citizens to be open to new approaches. "If we are not to lurch from one increasingly punitive and expensive reaction to another, we all need to take responsibility for understanding the options."

Mr Power ought to read the speech again, before thumping down his ministerial gavel.