The Coalition Government is creating victims, not supporting them
|
|
|
1 March 2024
|
Fear mongering was heavy in the lead up to the 2023 elections. The message was that hardened criminals and nefarious gangs were putting public safety at risk. We were experiencing a “crime wave” of “brazen offending”, said the National Party, and it was time we stopped “cuddling criminals” to “keep our communities safe”, said ACT. Now that National, Act and New Zealand First hold the political playbook, it’s time to hold them accountable. Is decreasing crime and supporting victims still at the forefront of their agenda? Looking at the bills they’ve passed under urgency, it’s hard to think their commitment towards victims has been anything more than a ruse. As the Coalition Government's 100 Day Plan enters its final phase, we’re on track to becoming a nation with harsh sentences, aggressive policing strategies, and lifelong consequences for youth offenders and gang whānau. The prisoner target has already been abolished, and section 27 reports will soon be defunded. |
Few readers will have had the opportunity to view a section 27 report in its entirety. Policy advisors and politicians are likely in the same boat. Broad statements about the content of these reports might be shared by the news media, but they fall short in illustrating the gravity of disadvantage and deprivation endured.
After writing close to two hundred section 27 reports, we can offer a glimpse into the world of those needing one written.
As a child, they were often the daily target of physical abuse, sometimes with a closed fist but often with a blunt instrument. They were likely seeing violence play out between their parents as well, and possibly stealing their friends’ lunchboxes to stave off hunger. A neighbour may have seen an argument, or drugs being sold, and called the police, leading the child entering state care. At this point they’d be isolated from their family and potentially experiencing physical or sexual harm by their carers or other children. They’d have become reliant on alcohol to numb the pain and started running away on repeat, hoping to avoid harm but only initiating further instability. They’d attend numerous schools with no continuity of care and eventually drop out early. This would free up their time for antisocial youths on the streets, who would be the only ones the child could related to as they know what it’s like to feel rejected by home and state. Petty crime, Youth Justice facilities, hard drugs, serious crime, and prison would all ensue. And by the time we interview this person, they would have spent more time in state institutions than any one home. This would leave them with a sense of panic when released in the community with limited prosocial support.
The above example isn’t any one person’s story, it’s a pattern we hear over and over in s27 reports. And yet despite their violent and traumatic path to adulthood, rarely are these people publicly perceived as victims.
Unresolved trauma manifests in ugly ways. Child abuse and neglect, poverty, sexual molestation, and witnessing violence are among the most common risk factors for post-traumatic reactions, aggression, and antisocial behaviour. Trauma can reduce a person’s ability to control emotions and impulses and is frequently associated with poor educational and employment outcomes, addiction, homelessness, and high rates of recidivism.
It's estimated that 52% of women and 22% of men involved in the criminal justice system in Aotearoa have a lifetime diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. If the statistics are not higher than that already, they will be once we fill up prisons with gang members.
People don’t join gangs simply because they’re bored. Often, it’s a combined result of adverse childhood experiences and a lack of belonging or connection in their lives. Abuse at home and/or in state care can leave people feel isolated and angry. Instead of receiving support they become increasingly marginalised for their antisocial behaviours. And eventually, if not right away, human nature dictates that they’ll seek out a surrogate sense of family or community to fill that empty space in their lives.
Should childhood experiences excuse gang violence? Absolutely not. But their actions offer insight into how early life disadvantages can affect one’s life trajectory and decision-making processes. That’s what the section 27 reports have been about. The aim of these reports was to demonstrate a clear nexus between a person’s childhood and their offending. They illuminated the need for targeted rehabilitation because only by addressing the causes of violence can we hope to disrupt the cycle of crime and dysfunction for our younger generation.
Offenders will keep on offending if there’s no support and rehabilitation in their lives. We’ll see more victims as a result and taxpayers will bear the burden of excessive prison costs, which is currently $200,000 per year per prisoner. One only needs to look to Norway to realise the cost-benefits of rehabilitation. They moved away from a punitive ‘lock-up’ approach in the early 1990s to focus on improving the health and wellbeing of offenders. Recidivism fell to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years. Compare that to Aotearoa, where around 70% of people released from prison are reconvicted after two years and 49% of people released from prison are sent back behind bars.
Our government has proven they don’t follow evidence-based, long-term measures when it comes to crime. Their policies, which speak volumes about their narrow and prejudiced view of victims, are evidence of that. It seems to be the same with health and the environment, too, if repealing the smokefree law, disestablishing of Te Aka Whai Ora, and reopening oil and gas exploration is anything to go by.
The winners and losers over the next three years is clear, with the victims of crime and abuse, low-income Māori and Pasifika families, and the taxpayers fronting the bill, all falling into the latter category.
After writing close to two hundred section 27 reports, we can offer a glimpse into the world of those needing one written.
As a child, they were often the daily target of physical abuse, sometimes with a closed fist but often with a blunt instrument. They were likely seeing violence play out between their parents as well, and possibly stealing their friends’ lunchboxes to stave off hunger. A neighbour may have seen an argument, or drugs being sold, and called the police, leading the child entering state care. At this point they’d be isolated from their family and potentially experiencing physical or sexual harm by their carers or other children. They’d have become reliant on alcohol to numb the pain and started running away on repeat, hoping to avoid harm but only initiating further instability. They’d attend numerous schools with no continuity of care and eventually drop out early. This would free up their time for antisocial youths on the streets, who would be the only ones the child could related to as they know what it’s like to feel rejected by home and state. Petty crime, Youth Justice facilities, hard drugs, serious crime, and prison would all ensue. And by the time we interview this person, they would have spent more time in state institutions than any one home. This would leave them with a sense of panic when released in the community with limited prosocial support.
The above example isn’t any one person’s story, it’s a pattern we hear over and over in s27 reports. And yet despite their violent and traumatic path to adulthood, rarely are these people publicly perceived as victims.
Unresolved trauma manifests in ugly ways. Child abuse and neglect, poverty, sexual molestation, and witnessing violence are among the most common risk factors for post-traumatic reactions, aggression, and antisocial behaviour. Trauma can reduce a person’s ability to control emotions and impulses and is frequently associated with poor educational and employment outcomes, addiction, homelessness, and high rates of recidivism.
It's estimated that 52% of women and 22% of men involved in the criminal justice system in Aotearoa have a lifetime diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. If the statistics are not higher than that already, they will be once we fill up prisons with gang members.
People don’t join gangs simply because they’re bored. Often, it’s a combined result of adverse childhood experiences and a lack of belonging or connection in their lives. Abuse at home and/or in state care can leave people feel isolated and angry. Instead of receiving support they become increasingly marginalised for their antisocial behaviours. And eventually, if not right away, human nature dictates that they’ll seek out a surrogate sense of family or community to fill that empty space in their lives.
Should childhood experiences excuse gang violence? Absolutely not. But their actions offer insight into how early life disadvantages can affect one’s life trajectory and decision-making processes. That’s what the section 27 reports have been about. The aim of these reports was to demonstrate a clear nexus between a person’s childhood and their offending. They illuminated the need for targeted rehabilitation because only by addressing the causes of violence can we hope to disrupt the cycle of crime and dysfunction for our younger generation.
Offenders will keep on offending if there’s no support and rehabilitation in their lives. We’ll see more victims as a result and taxpayers will bear the burden of excessive prison costs, which is currently $200,000 per year per prisoner. One only needs to look to Norway to realise the cost-benefits of rehabilitation. They moved away from a punitive ‘lock-up’ approach in the early 1990s to focus on improving the health and wellbeing of offenders. Recidivism fell to only 20% after two years and about 25% after five years. Compare that to Aotearoa, where around 70% of people released from prison are reconvicted after two years and 49% of people released from prison are sent back behind bars.
Our government has proven they don’t follow evidence-based, long-term measures when it comes to crime. Their policies, which speak volumes about their narrow and prejudiced view of victims, are evidence of that. It seems to be the same with health and the environment, too, if repealing the smokefree law, disestablishing of Te Aka Whai Ora, and reopening oil and gas exploration is anything to go by.
The winners and losers over the next three years is clear, with the victims of crime and abuse, low-income Māori and Pasifika families, and the taxpayers fronting the bill, all falling into the latter category.
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
