Another One Bites the Dust: Recent Initiatives in Correctional Reform in New Zealand
| Published date | 01 December 2008 |
| Date | 01 December 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1375/acri.41.3.384 |
| Author | Newbold Greg |
384 THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
VOLUME 41 NUMBER 3 2008 PP. 384–401
Address for correspondence: Associate Professor Greg Newbold, School of Social and
Political Sciences, University of Canterbury, Pte Bag 4800, New Zealand. E-mail:
greg.newbold@canterbury.ac.nz
Another One Bites the Dust: Recent
Initiatives in Correctional Reform
in New Zealand
Greg Newbold
University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Since the end of the 19th century, New Zealand has experimented with a
variety of correctional ideas, the majority of which have imitated
progressive initiatives taken overseas. However, none of the earlier
attempts proved effective in reducing recidivist rates. Undeterred, in recent
years, two new and quite different programs, the first known as He Ara Hou;
the second as Integrated Offender Management, have been trialled by
correctional authorities. This article explains the philosophy and application
of the latest two programs, and discusses why they also failed.
For over a century, New Zealand has engaged in a range of attempts to achieve
reform in prison inmates. Influenced primarily by British and North American
developments, pre-1990s strategies included provision for youth and adult reforma-
tories, indeterminate sentencing, shock incarceration, agricultural work training
and structured post-release supervision. Some of the schemes were fastidiously
applied, others existed only in name, but either way the results were similar: none
had any measurable effect on recidivism.
In the early 1990s a liberal revolution took place in New Zealand corrections
with the launch of a system known by the Maori term, He Ara Hou (A New Way).
Central to the philosophy of He Ara Hou was the realignment of prison manage-
ment philosophy and breaking down authoritarian barriers between inmates and
staff. Ten years later another change took place, with the Department of
Corrections, having dumped He Ara Hou, now becoming committed to a new,
scientifically based approach to correctional reform, this time based on volumes of
meta-analytical research from North America. The new approach was called
Integrated Offender Management (IOM). The purpose of this article is to contextu-
alise recent developments by providing a brief history of New Zealand’s correctional
initiatives, followed by a more detailed analysis of how He Ara Hou and IOM
operated and performed.
A Brief History
New Zealand’s search for an effective means of reforming its criminals properly
commenced with the unification of the prison system in 1880. Initially, the English
method of punitive deterrence through discipline, deprivation, humiliation and
hard labour was preferred, but early in the 20th century the country adopted a
liberal–humanitarian approach that has driven criminal justice philosophy ever
since. Influenced by developments in the penal colony of Norfolk Island (see
Morris, 2002), in Ireland (see Heffernan, 2005), at Elmira NY (see Stone, 2005),
and finally in England (see Hood, 1965), in 1910 New Zealand began experiment-
ing with reformative sentences offering training and work programs followed by
release on parole. An open-ended sentence for young adults known as reformative
detention commenced that year, and borstal training for juveniles started in 1924.
So convinced were justice authorities of the efficacy of this so-called ‘new method’
that, by 1920, release on fixed remission had virtually been done away with and
replaced by a comprehensive system of parole for all offenders serving at least six
months. This release system endured until 1954 when the first National
Government, sceptical about the value and fairness of indeterminate sentencing,
replaced parole with fixed remission amounting to one-quarter of sentence
(Matthews, 1923; Newbold, 2007; Pratt, 1992; Webb, 1982).
After 1954, the country’s quest for reformative justice continued, influenced as
before by experiments overseas. In 1954, reformative detention was recognised as a
failure and replaced by an open-ended sentence called ‘corrective training’. Largely
due to burgeoning prison populations and associated overcrowding, this sentence
was never applied as intended and it was abolished 9 years later (Newbold, 2007).
During a legislative surge in the early 1960s, several measures were adopted to deal
with the rising issue of juvenile delinquency. In 1961 a 3-month sentence of shock
incarceration known as ‘detention in a detention centre’ commenced, special
programs for first offenders were established at a new borstal at Waipiata in South
Otago (Department of Justice, 1971) and, in 1962, weekend custody for males,
known as ‘periodic detention’, began. In spite of the considerable amount of
planning and resources invested in these and other schemes, none had any demon-
strable effect on recidivism (see Department of Justice, 1969, 1971, 1973;
Department of Social Welfare, 1973; Newbold, 2007; Walker & Brown, 1983).
By the beginning of the 1980s, it was apparent that nothing attempted to that
point had ‘worked’ in terms of making a measurable impact on reoffending. In 1981,
a high-powered inquiry into penal policy commissioned by the Minister of Justice,
which included a review of international research into correctional ‘effectiveness’,
concluded that prisons are unlikely to rehabilitate. The inquiry’s panel of eight,
Chaired by Supreme Court Justice Maurice Casey, consisted of a member of the
prisons parole board, an associate professor of criminal law, the Secretary for Justice,
the Justice Department’s Director of Planning and Development, the Chief Judge of
the District Court, a retired Assistant Commissioner of Police and a Maori social
worker. Its opinion was clear:
We have … expressed our reservations over the relative ineffectiveness of prisons
over many areas in preventing recidivism or in achieving rehabilitation of the
offender, prevention of crime, or deterrence of offenders. We think a mistaken belief
385
RECENT INITIATIVES IN CORRECTIONAL REFORM IN NEW ZEALAND
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
To continue reading
Request your trial