AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

Introduction

In 1950 Finland’s incarceration rate was four times the rate of the Nordic countries (e.g., Denmark, Sweden and Norway) and it was the highest in Europe(Pratt, 2008). Finland’s imprisonment rate was nearly 200 per 100,000 of the population(Pratt, 2008). However in 1960 a number of policy changes were made within the Finnish Criminal Justice system and since then the country’s incarceration rate has reduced dramatically. Some of these changes included: reduction in sentencing lengths for minor offences such as theft and drink driving, changes made to parole releases, the use of alternatives to imprisonment such as community services specifically for minor offences and a deliberate refusal on behalf of the Finnish authorities to allow more prisons to be built(Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000; Pratt, 2008). As a result of these changes, by 1990 Finland reached the Nordic level and since then Finland has been able to keep its imprisonment rates low(Lappi-Seppälä, 2011). Today Finland’s incarceration rate is about 70 per 100,000 of the population(Pratt, 2008). All of this was made possible without jeopardising public safety. If Finland was able to reduce its high incarceration rates there is no reason why New Zealand cannot reduce its high incarceration rates.

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether the changes Finland made to their Criminal Justice System to reduce their incarceration rates can be applied to New Zealand’s Criminal Justice system to help reduce New Zealand’s extremely high incarceration rates. The first section of the paper examines the policy changes Finnish authorities made to their Criminal Justice System. The second section of the paper examines changes that need to be made to New Zealand’s Criminal Justice system in order to reduce New Zealand’s incarceration rates.  The paper concludes that New Zealand is at a critical point in terms of its rapidly increasing incarceration rates, thus it is important that New Zealand starts to take this issue seriously.

Finland’s high incarceration rates

In 1950 Finland’s imprisonment rate was about 200 per 100,000 of the population, whereas Sweden, Norway and Denmark had incarceration rates of about 50 per 100,000(Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000, 2011). This means Finland had the highest incarceration rates in Europe, with a rate four times as high as those of the other Nordic countries (Lappi-Seppälä, 2000, 2011; Pratt, 2008). One main reason for why Finland had a higher incarceration rate than the rest of the countries was that Finland was a very punitive society(Houseman, 2010). Finnish people were incarcerated for committing relatively minor offences such as drink- driving and theft and they also had to serve lengthy sentences for these minor offences. However, this became unsustainable as more and more people were imprisoned(Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000).  The next section will outline some of the changes Finland made.

Changes to Finland’s Criminal Justice system to reduce incarceration rates

In 1960 criminal justice agencies, prison authorities, the judiciary and the courts all came to a consensus that the high rates of imprisonment in Finland were an embarrassment and were unacceptable(Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000, 2011; Pratt, 2008). Therefore Finnish authorities all agreed to find a way to reduce the imprisonment rates without affecting public safety; they did so and it was a success (Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000; Pratt, 2008). The changes made included sentencing reforms for minor offences, changes to parole releases, deliberate refusal from Finish authorities to allow more prisons to be built and a deliberate refusal to incarcerate young offenders(Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000, 2011; Pratt, 2008). All of these contributed to Finland’s success in reducing its imprisonment rate.

Sentencing changes for minor offences

One effective method that worked for Finland and managed to reduce their incarceration rate was the sentence reductions for relatively minor offences such as drink-driving and theft (Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000; Pratt, 2008). For instance, in 1950 the average length of all the sentences imposed for theft was 12 months; in 1971 this was reduced to about 7 months and in 1999 it was reduced to 2 months(Lappi-Seppälä, 2000). The effect of this was that people were not serving lengthy sentences, which meant that more people were released more quickly, thus reducing the number of people that were in prison at any given period of time. 

Changes to parole release

A second effective method was changes that were made to parole releases.  Offenders had to serve long sentences before being eligible for parole(Lappi-Seppälä, 2000). However this was later changed to allow more people to be released from prison earlier. For instance, today first time offenders are automatically eligible for parole after they serve one third of their sentence(Lappi-Seppälä, 2000). Before this was not the case and there were a lot of restrictions around parole that prevented offenders being released early(Lappi-Seppälä, 2000).

No more prisons in Finland

A third significant change in Finland was the authorities deliberate refusal to allow any more prisons to be built(Pratt, 2008). Building more prisons is extremely expensive; billions of tax-payers’ money are spent on building prisons(Corrections, 2010). To a large extent this was successful, because it prevented more people being locked up. Put simply, if there is no space for new offenders then Criminal Justice system agencies are more reluctant to charge people, particularly for minor offences. More importantly, the money that was not spent on prisons could be spent on welfare, on building more schools and on education(Pratt, 2008). Investing in this might in fact further reduce imprisonment rates, as the evidence suggests that people from poorer communities are more likely to engage in criminal acts and thus are more likely to be incarcerated(Waquant, 2001; Williams, 2000).

All of the aforementioned changes that Finland has made to their Criminal Justice system to reduce imprisonment rates have been very effective and successful (Houseman, 2010; Lappi-Seppälä, 2000; Pratt, 2008). Today Finland’s incarceration rate is extremely low—it is about 70 per 100,000(Pratt, 2008). They have a low crime rate and low recidivism rates (Lappi-Seppälä, 2000, 2011; Pratt, 2008). For this reason, Finland is a perfect model for New Zealand. The next section will apply the changes that Finland has made to reduce their imprisonment rates to New Zealand.

New Zealand’s high incarceration rates

New Zealand has always been a very punitive society(Clark, 2005; Pratt, 2006). As a result, New Zealand has extremely high rates of incarceration and currently New Zealand’s imprisonment rate is 203 per 100, 000 of the population(Pratt, 2008). Over 40 per cent of those incarcerated are young offenders aged between 15 and 29(Corrections, 2011).  The majority are incarcerated for minor offences such as theft, violence, burglary and so forth (Corrections, 2011). Moreover, the evidence suggests that News Zealand’s recidivism rate is very high, with about 60 per cent of released offenders returning to prison within two to three years of being released(Corrections, 2007 ; workman, 2011).

Like Finland, the first step that New Zealand needs to take is to gain a unanimous consensus from law-makers, politicians, judges, police, media and the public that New Zealand’s high rate of imprisonment is unacceptable and that it can be reduced without jeopardising public safety. Without a consensus on this, imprisonment rates cannot be reduced.  

Address the root causes of crime

The second significant step towards reducing incarceration rates is addressing the root causes of crime. Poverty, income inequality, unemployment, lack of skills and opportunities are said to be some of the root causes of crime(workman, 2011). These root causes affect mostly marginalised communities and it is marginalised communities/people who fill prisons in New Zealand(workman, 2011). The government refuses to address these root causes and instead individuals are blamed for their criminality. Unless this is addressed and dealt with properly the incarceration rates will keep on rising. The point is, imprisoning marginalised people makes their position in society even worse. They come out of prison and they have no jobs, they have no housing and they have no income(workman, 2011). When one does not have anything, crime becomes increasingly attractive. The evidence suggests that this is one reason why so many released offenders reoffend. The prison system fails to adequately prepare released offenders for the outside world(workman, 2011).

No more prisons in New Zealand

A third significant step that could reduce New Zealand’s imprisonment rates is for no more prisons to be built. Currently New Zealand has 21 prisons and every year more and more prisons are being built. Locking people up is extremely expensive. Prisons cost about 9.1 billion dollars a year and an offender costs taxpayers over 90,000 dollars a year(Corrections, 2011). New Zealand should imitate Finland and stop allowing more prisons to be built. This would have to mean no more prison privatisation. The evidence suggests that privatised prisons want to profit from prisoners and the more offenders they have in prison the more money they make(Davis, 2003). A more effective solution might be to spend that money on building more schools, on providing more resources to underprivileged schools, on welfare and on health care, thus taking a genuine step towards reducing the mass income inequality that exists both in New Zealand and in all Western countries.

Sentencing changes to minor offences

Finally New Zealand needs to be more lenient when it comes to locking people up for minor offences, especially first time and young offenders. In 2010, 70 per cent of the offenders sentenced to prison were released within seven months(workman, 2011). This suggests that a lot of people are being incarcerated for relatively minor offences such as dishonesty offences, burglary, car theft, property offences and family offences like violence(Corrections, 2010, 2011). Minor offences such as robbery, theft, property damage and so forth should be dealt with in other ways because institutionalisation has a tremendous effect on people. Once a person has been incarcerated, their opportunities in life are automatically affected; their record impacts their future and their ability to get a job(workman, 2011). Thus, everything should be done to divert people from going into prison. This should be the case specifically for young offenders, given the fact that the vast majority of people in prison are young people(Corrections, 2011). For example, getting offenders to do community service is more effective than institutionalising them(workman, 2011). At the end of the day, people need to remember not everyone in prison is a serial killer or a rapist. Thus not incarcerating people who commit minor offences does not necessarily impact public safety.

Conclusion

New Zealand has the potential to reduce their incarceration rates if they make some of the changes set out in this paper. Far too many people are being incarcerated and New Zealand needs to stop this. If steps are not taken now to reduce the high imprisonment rates in 5 to 10 years’ time New Zealand’s imprisonment rate will be even higher. Now is the time for New Zealand to adequately address and deal with its increasingly high imprisonment rates. New Zealand has a small population of just over 4 million and for it to be second to the United States, with a population of over 300 million people, suggests that New Zealand is incarcerating far too many people. Even more appalling is the fact that New Zealand’s incarceration rate is not in line with its crime rates. In fact, the evidence suggests that crime has decreased(workman, 2011). So why is New Zealand incarcerating so many people? Because New Zealand is, as it has always been, a very punitive society(Clark, 2005). This needs to change if New Zealand ever hopes to reduce its incarceration rates. This paper has suggested that measures such as addressing the root causes of crime, refusing to privatise prisons and not incarcerating youth offenders who have committed relatively minor offences have the potential to decrease New Zealand’s incarceration rates. This is not going to happen overnight—it might take decades even—but the important point is that steps need to be taken urgently.