|
December 30, 2009
Over the last 30 years conservative state politicians in Australia have adopted the US approach to crime in the 1980s and 1990s. This was the "tough on crime" era when incarceration was touted as the simple solution to our crime problem--which was sold as either the 'three strikes law" approach-- or "do the crime do the time" in Victoria and South Australia.
The conservative's punitive approach stands for longer and harsher penalties and the elimination of rehabilitation. Under this system, offenders who could be more cheaply deterred or rehabilitated instead incurred the most expensive -- and, from the perspective of its effect on the community, damaging -- form of punishment possible. These conservative populists have taken their policies and rhetoric from the harsh American penal system.
Incarceration was the solution to social problems, urban decay and the public fear about unsafe and disordered neighbourhoods. It emerged as a critique of the social democrat approach to crime, which held that crime was the result of "root causes" such as poverty and poor education. Law and order conservatives labelled this as being "soft on crime" and made crime a political (law and order) issue to make the streets safer by "cracking down on crime". Consequently, the number of people incarcerated in the prison system has increased dramatically.
For state politicians in Australia there can be no such thing as not being tough enough on crime. They assume that breaking the law was an individual decision, not the product of social circumstances. Therefore, the only way to reduce crime was to make sure crime didn't pay. Incarceration was the means to ensure crime didn't pay. These political elites were not simply responding to popular opinion about crime and punishment as these conservatives played a large role in shaping the public's perceptions about crime.
In this they follow James Q. Wilson, who argued that government is ill equipped to remedy the root causes of crime, even if they could be identified with certainty; that people make rational choices to commit crime based on the relative risk and reward offered; that public policy decisions regarding crime should increase the risk and lower the relative reward of crime thereby helping to deter it.
The argument is that serious street crime flourishes in areas in which disorderly behavior (graffiti, a mugging, vagrancy or drunkenness) goes unchecked.This is the broken window theory behind the conservative's punishment regime.
A problem with the "tough on crime" approach to curbing offending behavior by relying solely on incarceration is the recognition that something is deeply wrong with a modern industrialized nation imprisons a large percentage of its population; and, secondly, the problem of recidivism in that the prison system itself is criminogenic.
Thirdly, mass incarceration (including persons with mental illness, cognitive disability, dual diagnosis, Indigenous women and remandees, a significant number of who do not end up receiving a custodial
sentence at the end of their remand period) plays havoc with state budgets.Tough on crime can mean becoming bankrupt on crime. The neo-liberal solution to bankruptcy is to invest in mass incarceration as a business model--the privatization of the prison system.
|
With a recidivism rate of 55-60% the tough on crime approach is really going well. I thought that privatisation of the prison system was already upon us? Off the top of my head I think the savings have been around 15-18%.