Monster under our beds
When kids in movies are terrified of the monster under the bed, and parents smile and reassure them that there’s no such thing, the monster is always under the bed.
This week the Government announced a suite of crime prevention tools for retailers, while it also tried to explain there really isn’t a problem. ‘‘Shop owners and workers feel targeted. That’s unacceptable,’’ Jacinda Ardern conceded. Here’s some new funding, despite the fact that ‘‘youth crime is now much lower than in the past’’.
The defensive, even irritable, ‘‘refuting’’, ‘‘rejecting’’ and ‘‘not standing by’’ was jarring from a prime minister whose empathy came up with ‘‘They are us’’ within hours of the terrorism in Christchurch.
The Government’s response to the senseless killing of Janak Patel has seemed different. Ardern delivered this frankly odd statement: ‘‘Given the matter is before the courts, I can’t say much more at this time other than to acknowledge how important it is that justice is done.’’
Having ‘‘the matter’’ before the courts was no barrier to sharing the grief in Christchurch. Is there something we don’t know about the alleged offenders that would make the PM overly cautious?
In the 1990s, former UK prime minister Tony Blair promised to be ‘‘tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime’’. Like all good cliches, his formula is well-worn because it is obvious. ‘‘The public – contrary to conventional wisdom – does not ignore the social content of crime. But, rightly, they will only listen to people who show understanding of
their own plight as potential victims,’’ he wrote.
It should not be controversial for a government to both protect us from being attacked and having our stuff stolen, while also championing a justice system that doesn’t just punish and deter, but also rehabilitates and reintegrates for the good of society (not just the individual).
The Government’s inability to be clear about justice and crime has the same cause as many of its familiar flaws: it never did enough deep thinking in opposition. In contrast, UK Labour did, which is how it came up with a fresh approach to crime that neutralised its critics.
Instead of thinking about where its critics have a point and responding with better arguments, criticism of this Government is ‘‘refuted’’ and ‘‘rejected’’. People with different ideas are wrong. The Government is righteous, opponents are bad. Alternative interpretations are ‘‘misinformation’’.
Some of the Government’s prominent cheerleaders went on social media to condemn the spokesperson for dairy owners. Not to grieve with a community suffering a desperate loss, but to demonstrate that critics are motivated by bad faith. To reject the reality of people’s everyday experience is rarely a winning political strategy.
Most of us understand that crime feels serious now. We are not brainwashed – we see what is happening around us, to our friends and in our communities. Drugs easily available. Bikes and cars stolen in broad daylight. More gang members.
While zero Covid and lockdowns were the right response in 2020, there were obvious unintended consequences that are making life hard now. It led to some disengagement. Record numbers of kids in low-decile schools are no longer regularly attending school.
Gangs and 501s have spread here from Australia and taken the opportunity to give disengaged young people something to do. These are tough problems to solve. The Government hasn’t caused this crime wave in the sense that it did something unwise. We would have chosen lockdown even knowing that many young people would come out disengaged troublemakers. We can acknowledge it came with costs.
If the Government wants to fix problems, it has to start by acknowledging the problem exists. Then be frank about the causes.
Crime prevention strategies need to be adapted locally, where neighbourhoods know best the causes and causers of crime in their community.
There is a principle in international law called the Responsibility to Protect that is derived from the basic requirement of every state towards its citizens. It starts with the responsibility to prevent crime. When that fails, the state has a responsibility to protect us. And if you are a victim, a responsibility to rebuild. This is a simple template for any government.
A shared sense of the burden of crime helps communities heal. Denying there is a problem, and being defensive about its causes, undermines our sense of community and common identity. It creates a crack in which anti-social behaviour flourishes.
When that dairy was attacked, when every shop is ramraided, the monster under the bed shows it can hurt us. The way to deal with our fears is to acknowledge them and be honest about the facts. Tough on the monster, tough on the causes of the monster.