Bridges: ‘Why prison stops crime’
National leader Simon Bridges has provided the basis for claims the threat of prison stops crime — an unpublished study that has not been peer-reviewed that suggests the worst offenders aren’t put off by the prospect of prison.
The paper studied a mass pardon in Italy and found reoffending rates showed certain inmates were put off further offending by the prospect of prison.
The research paper was provided by Bridges after the Herald asked for the evidence to support his claim the Three Strikes legislation deterred people from committing further crime.
This month has seen two judges question the value of longer sentencing.
Court of Appeal president Justice Stephen Kos said greater flexibility in sentencing, shorter sentences and open prisons could be the answer to a safer New Zealand.
Before sentencing two drug couriers, High Court judge Matthew Palmer asked prosecution and defence lawyers for evidence that longer sentences actually put people off further crime. The Crown didn’t produce any evidence they did — and the defence produced evidence they did not.
The study — Criminal Discount Factors and Deterrence — said “imprisonment does have the potential to deter crime”.
But it showed any deterrent effect was not in areas likely to impact on New Zealand’s recurring offender or prison population.
It found there was a strong potential deterrent effect on prisoners who were educated and older.
Of those in New Zealand prisons, 71 per cent of people do not have literacy levels sufficient to cope with daily tasks and 65 per cent were aged under 40.
It also found there was a minimal deterrent effect for those imprisoned on drug or violence charges — such inmates make up half of New Zealand’s prison population.
It also said it might not be the best choice because money put into prison could be better used for “policies aimed at increasing the certainty of punishment either through a higher probability of apprehension or through improved efficiency of the criminal justice system”.
The paper was produced for an internal thinktank as a “working paper” and came with the caveat such studies “often represent preliminary work”.
Victoria University criminologist Dr Liam Martin said it was surprising Bridges had supplied a paper which had not been peer-reviewed or published.
He said there had been peerreviewed published academic research on the mass Italian pardon of 22,000 prisoners.
The pardons were to relieve pressure on prisons and saw inmates with fewer than three years to serve freed on condition they did not offend again. If they did, the old sentence would be added to any new sentence.
Martin said the data from the Italian pardons appeared to show those who had spent less time in prison were put off returning while those who served lengthy prison sentences were less troubled.
He said it lined up with research showing those who spent long periods in prison became used to it.
Martin said: “The literature does suggest some kind of deterrence effect but that works against the fact that sending people to prison makes them more likely to reoffend.”
He said overall research showed prisons did not work as the negative aspects outweighed any positive benefit to the community.
Bridges initially offered Three Strikes statistics as evidence underpinning his belief in deterrence, despite the Ministry of Justice repeatedly saying the data should not be used that way. When this was pointed out, the National Party leader’s office provided a statement and a link to the Italian study. In the statement, Bridges said: “This paper from 2016 shows that harsher sentences work as a deterrent, but deterrence is only one factor in support of tough prison sentences.” Bridges said: “That’s why we believe in Three Strikes. “We believe in giving people second chances, but the really bad guys on their third strikes have proven they can’t be trusted in society.”