Open letter to Gerry Brownlee – and his little piece of Finland

Dear Gerry,

Thank you for comparing New Zealand to Finland and bringing these remarkable differences between our two countries into the open. Professor John Pratt, a criminologist at Victoria University has been making similar comparisons for years – but no one seems to listen. That’s a shame because Prof Pratt is recognised by those in his field as a world authority on the subject.

What’s more, Prof Pratt actually knows what he’s talking about. He’s been to Finland, undertaken extensive research and written numerous articles and books on the subject – so if you want to make another speech about Finland, perhaps he could help you out.

Here’s something Prof Pratt could tell you.

In 1950, the Finns had an imprisonment rate of 187 inmates per 100,000 of population. New Zealand’s rate in 1950 was less than a third of that – at 56 inmates per 100,000.In the latter half of the 20^th century, the Finns became concerned that they were out of line with their more civilised Scandinavian neighbours, which had low rates of imprisonment. This led to dramatic changes in penal policy, as a result of which the number of people in prison slowly began to drop. By 2001, the rate was down to only 40 people per 100,000 – an extraordinary reduction of 78% in the prison population.

During the same 50 years, New Zealandwent in the opposite direction. In 2001, instead of being three times less, our rate of imprisonment was three times higher than Finland’s – at 150 inmates per 100,000. Since then, the New Zealand rate has continued to grow and in November 2011, the figure was at an all-time high of 199 per 100,000. During this time we’ve had to build five new prisons – and even put prisoners into shipping containers.

How did the Finns manage to reduce their prison population? Commenting on the Finns’ success, Prof Pratt wrote:

“Key people in that society – people who actually knew something about penal policy and the consequences of imprisonment: academics, judges and senior civil servants – felt that the high prison population was shameful”.

In New Zealand, the media (and the politicians) mostly seem to consult Garth McVicar – a self-proclaimed cow cocky from Napier with no qualifications in psychology, sociology, criminology or anything else remotely connected with penal policy. No wonder our prisons are overflowing and your government is going to build another one at Wiri – with $900 million of our money.

Ironically, your Government has also announced a reduction in reoffending as one of its ten key goals. If you’re serious about that – go to Finland and see for yourself. Anne Tolley went – and now she’s the Minister of Corrections. The two of you could compare notes. And another thing – Finland has the most comprehensive victim compensation system in the world. You could take Garth McVicar with you. He might learn something about helping victims instead of spouting off about locking up more and more people.

So my advice, Gerry, is give Prof Pratt a call on your Nokia – on your little bit of Finland. You might learn something about how to reduce reoffending, help victims and save the country billions in prison costs.

Drinking too much water to be an offence

A Bill has just passed its first reading in the New Zealand Parliament which will enable prisoners to be charged with an offence for drinking too much water. Corrections Minister Anne Tolley said: “The Bill will make it an offence for a prisoner to ‘waterload’ prior to a drug test. This means that a prisoner can be disciplined if they are found to be attempting to dilute their urine sample by intentionally drinking large amounts of water prior to being tested.”

This is nonsense – prisoners don’t know when they’ll be tested. The drug tests are generally random so it’s virtually impossible to ‘intentionally’ drink large amounts of water prior to being tested. If a prisoner is thirsty and drinks a lot of water, and if a random drug test is done soon afterwards, this will now constitute ‘misconduct’.

Double jeopardy -‘bashful bladder’

When prisoners are made to do a drug test, there are usually two or three prison officers watching. Some people find this so off-putting they can’t pee. The inability to pee in front of others is a well-known psychological condition called paruresis – sometimes referred to as ‘bashful bladder’. The condition affects around 7% of the population. Those with mild paruresis are able to urinate in certain circumstances but incapable in others. In British prisons, paruresis is considered a valid reason for a prisoner’s inability to produce a sample and is not to be construed as an offence. However, in New Zealand, failing to supply a sample in prison is classified as ‘misconduct’ – and is automatically assumed to indicate a positive result.

If a prisoner has any misconduct offences on their file in the six months before appearing at the Parole Board, their chances of being released are substantially diminished. In prison you have to keep your nose clean (and now your bladder empty) to have any chance of release. One female prisoner I worked with developed paruresis after being sexually abused. She was charged with misconduct when she failed to produce a sample in front of three officers. She appealed to a visiting Justice of the Peace to have the ‘misconduct’ removed from her file but the process took so long she ended up serving her whole sentence.

Another case involved a young female prisoner who has been in prison for seven years without using drugs. She was doing well and had been given privileges such as a minimum security classification, living in a self-care unit within the prison and for the last two years working outside the wire on day-release. She was almost ready to be released. When asked to provide a random urine sample, she was watched by an officer for 5 hours. She couldn’t provide enough urine for the test and was deemed to have refused. She was charged with misconduct and punished. Her security classification was raised to medium-high; she lost her job; she was taken out of self care and put back into a mainstream unit. Now she is so depressed she feels like giving up.

A male prisoner diagnosed with prostate cancer was also affected by paruresis and told me can’t pee when officers are watching. The prison medical staff know he has had cancer but won’t accept that he has paruresis. They told him he would have to pay for a private psychiatrist to come into the prison to make a diagnosis – at a cost of about $5,000.

Denial of rehabilitation

This Bill provides one more mechanism for punishing rather than rehabilitating prisoners. Any ‘misconduct’ in prison (such as a positive drug test or failing to provide a urine sample) leads to a denial of privileges – including attendance at rehabilitation programmes. Prisoners with drug problems have to give up drugs first and have a record of good behaviour before being allowed to attend drug treatment. Now it seems they have to stay thirsty as well. If they drink too much water and have diluted urine – that’s misconduct – meaning no rehabilitation.

There is no need for this punitive piece of legislation. The number of prisoners caught smoking cannabis is on the decline. In the last few years, Corrections has tightened up security and fewer drugs are smuggled in. In 2010, only 10.5% of prisoners tested positive on random drug tests – the lowest result since drug tests began in 1998. In contrast to this, in 2011, only 1,255 prisoners attended rehabilitation programmes targeting their offending. That’s about 5% of the 20,000 people who end up in prison each year. The Department doesn’t need to be more rigorous about drug testing. It needs to stop putting up barriers and put more prisoners into rehabilitation.

Roger Brooking: Author of Flying Blind – How the justice system perpetuates crime and the Corrections Department fails to correct

It doesn’t add up – the muddled mathematics of prison closures

The Government has announced that two old prisons will close – Wellington’s Mount Crawford Prison (which holds 120 prisoners) and the New Plymouth prison (which holds 112). That’s a total of 225 prison beds that will go – permanently. And about time too – those places are pre-historic. However, the closures are being used to justify building a new prison at Wiri which will house 960 prisoners. 960 new places to replace 225 old ones. That’s ridiculous – there are already 1,200 empty prison beds across the country. Once the new Wiri prison is built there will be 2,000 empty beds. This just doesn’t make sense. Mount Crawford, New Plymouth, Arohata and Rolleston hold 700 prisoners between them. They could all be closed tomorrow and there would still be spare capacity.

Instead, the Government announced that some units in Arohata, Rolleston, Rangipo and Waikeria prisons will also close. Does adding (or subtracting) a few units from the equation justify a new prison? Not really. Units which close can be opened again. Mount Crawford closed for 12 months between June 2008 and July 2009 but reopened when the prison muster went through the roof. So unless these old units are torn down, they’re not really closing at all. The Government is just hedging its bets with a dollar both ways – actually $900 million – which is the anticipated cost of the new prison. This is what punters do when they don’t know which way to go.

The lack of direction

Corrections Minister Anne Tolley and chief executive Ray Smith should be providing direction. But they seem really confused. In an attempt to justify the closures, Mr Smith said: “Every attempt would be made to ensure as many inmates as possible were housed in prisons near to their families.” He must be joking. The Department makes very little effort to place prisoners near their families. It’s closing two small prisons which actually enable prisoners to be near their families and moving them into mega prisons away from their families. Corrections moves prisoners around for all sorts of reasons. It moves them away when rehabilitation programmes it wants to put them into aren’t available in the local prison. It also moves them away from their families when the local prison is full – which it usually is. The Department moves prisoners around for whatever reason it chooses and in 2011 spent over $1 million transferring prisoners from once place to another.

Mr Smith’s vision has been clouded by the Department’s overpaid policy analysts and spin doctors. He went on to say: “The changes … will give Corrections a strong platform from which to target re-offending rates.” Yeah right! In 2000, the Department introduced “Integrated Offender Management” (IOM) system which was described at the time as “the biggest single initiative the department has undertaken to reduce reoffending”. It made no difference whatsoever. Canterbury University criminologist Dr Greg Newbold described it as “Another wreck on the scrapheap of abandoned fads of criminal rehabilitation.”

In 2006 the Department dropped a rehabilitation programme called Straight Thinking after an evaluation found it increased reoffending rather than reducing it – after putting over 10,000 offenders through it. In 2008, the Department introduced a new programme called the MIRP – or Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme. This is described on the Department’s website as: “A generic programme to teach offenders how to alter the thoughts, attitudes and behaviours that led to their offending and assist them to develop strategies for maintaining any positive changes made”. More prisoners now do the MIRP than any other rehabilitation programme. The problem is – it doesn’t work either. Corrections recently discovered it doesn’t reduce re-offending at all. They just haven’t told anyone yet.

Because these programmes don’t work, over 50% of those released from prison are back inside within five years. The reality is that nothing the Department has ever done has changed these figures. It makes no difference whether the prisons are old, new, small or large. These stats remain the same.

In the meantime, Finance Minister Bill English says the Government is facing the biggest deficit in its history. Thousands of public servants are being laid off, the gap between rich and poor is growing and more and more Kiwis are leaving the country. These stats are all going up. Meanwhile, crime is on the decline, the prison population is dropping and there are 1,200 empty prison beds. These stats are all going down. But the new prison at Wiri is going ahead anyway – at a cost of $900 million. This just doesn’t add up.

The MIRP doesn’t work

The Government has set 10 targets for the public sector over the next three to five years. One of those targets is a reduction in criminal reoffending. The responsibility for this clearly falls on the Corrections Department – which currently provides a number of rehabilitation programmes focussed on different aspects of offending such as anti-social thinking, drug addiction or a propensity for violence.

Most offenders are referred to the MIRP (Medium Intensity Rehabilitation Programme) which is available both in prison and to offenders in the community. The MIRP was introduced by Corrections in 2008 and replaced a programme called Straight Thinking which had been the cornerstone of the Department’s rehabilitation efforts for years. The Department’s website says: “The aim of (Straight Thinking) is to assist offenders address one of the main causes of their offending – that is the lack of critical reasoning required for social integration”.

Between 2000 and 2006, over 10,000 offenders were required by Corrections to attend Straight Thinking. The problem was – it didn’t work. The Department cancelled it in 2006 after an evaluation found it increased the likelihood of offending rather than reducing it.

The flaws in the programme

One of Straight Thinking’s flaws was that it was a cognitive skills programme requiring better than average literacy skills – a bit of a rarity among those in prison. According to Corrections executive prison manager, Dr Brendan Anstiss, such programmes ‘have at best a modest effective on recidivism’. And yet the Department went on to introduce the MIRP – described on its website as: “A generic programme to teach offenders how to alter the thoughts, attitudes and behaviours that led to their offending and assist them to develop strategies for maintaining any positive changes made”.

This sounds remarkably similar to the description of the Straight Thinking programme it replaced. In 2010, the Department completed an initial evaluation which indicated the MIRP reduced subsequent re-imprisonment by 2%. The Department seemed to think this was a good outcome – the Annual Report for 2010 described the result like this:

“The results reflect a period of delivery (2008-09) during which this programme was rapidly expanded across the country, involving considerable training and support provided to the programme delivery workforce, which suggests that, once fully bedded in, this programme will produce significantly positive outcomes”.

One of the Department’s critics, Roger Brooking, was not so sure. In Flying Blind – how the justice system perpetuates crime and the Corrections Department fails to correct, Mr Brooking wrote: “This sounds like more managerial spin. The reality is that the MIRP is just another cognitive skills programme, which according to Dr Brendan Anstiss ‘have at best a modest effective on recidivism’. In that it doesn’t treat drug and alcohol problems, it seems doubtful that it will be much more effective than the programme it replaced.”

Mr Brooking was right. The programme is now bedded in and the Department’s Annual Report for 2011 (on page 16) shows the MIRP is no more effective than the programme it replaced. Although there is a small reduction in reoffending in the first 12 months, after two years, the reduction in the rate of imprisonment by those completing the programme is reported at 0.0%. It has no long term benefit.

Corrections Department’s double standard

In other words, if the Government is to achieve any reduction in re-offending, it will not be achieved by the Corrections Department. Government will have to rely almost entirely on Serco which currently runs the Mt Eden prison and will soon be given the task of running the new prison at Wiri. Making sure that Serco performs better than Corrections, the private provider will be punished by the Department if they don’t. The NZ Herald reported: “Serco will face stiff financial penalties if it does not meet rehabilitation targets – which will be set at 10 % lower than public prisons.”

Serco (but not Corrections) also faces penalties if prisoners escape – they had to cough up $150,000 to Corrections in February when a prisoner escaped from Mt Eden – even though two prisoners escaped from Corrections prisons on the same day. It seems there’s one rule for Corrections (we don’t have to achieve anything) and another rule for Serco (you have to do better than us).

Anyway, Serco has to reduce reoffending by ten per cent less than zero. Sounds like a walk in the park – well it will be if more prisoners escape.

Financial crisis solved – govt finds $900 million for new prison

The Government has just given the go ahead to Corrections to build a new 960 bed prison at Wiri – to be run by Serco. The prison is expected to cost over $400 million to build with another $500 million in operating costs. In other words, nearly $1 billion of taxpayers’ money is going to be spent at a time when the government is facing the biggest deficit in its financial history and public servants are being laid off left, right and centre. The chief executives of the 30-plus departments and ministries who have head offices in Wellington are under huge pressure to produce what the Treasury calls “efficiency dividends”. Even the police are not exempt and have been told to save $350 million in the next three years.

But financial restictions don’t seem to apply to the Corrections Department. New Zealand has built five new prisons in the last ten years – four under the previous Labour Government and one under National – the new Mt Eden prison also run by Serco. Corrections is about to become the biggest Department in the country and the bill to the New Zealand taxpayer for locking all these people up has more than doubled since 2004-05.

But in 2011, for the first time ever, the Justice Sector forecasts indicated that crime was on the decline and the prison population was beginning to drop. The forecasts show the prison population should drop by 3000 by the time the new Wiri prison is complete in 2015. In other words, New Zealand doesn’t need a new prison.

Corrections propaganda

But Governments like building prisons – just in case they decide to be ‘tough on crime’. So they need to make up excuses – well lies really. One of the justifications given for the new prison by Corrections Minister Anne Tolley is that it will allow the Department to close down Mount Crawford prison in Wellington. This makes no sense whatsoever. Mount Crawford has only 120 prisoners – while the new prison at Wiri will hold 960. Because of the declining prison population, Mount Crawford could be closed right now without the need for another prison to be built.

The other justification given by the Government is that the new prison will be run by Serco who will run it more efficiently than the Corrections Department. That doesn’t seem likely. They’ve just been fined $150,000 because a prisoner escaped. They will also be fined if they fail to reduce reoffending by 10% more than the Corrections Department prisons. Good luck with that.

And let’s not forget that Serco runs the Federal Detention Centre for asylum seekers on Easter Island and has an international record of abusing prisoners even forcing them to sleep in toilets. New Zealand prisoners also sleep in the toilets – but do we really want to fork out $900 milion so that Serco can be more efficient at abusing New Zealand prisoners than the Corrections Department.

The $900 million could be better spent on early intervention programs, funding drug courts, extending addiction treatment in the community and building a system of halfway houses to support inmates leaving prison. But it won’t be. It’ll be spent on the new prison. Who said crime doesn’t pay? It certainly does. If I was a public servant in some other government department and had just lost my job, I’d feel seriously aggrieved.

Sleep deprivation and pain medication – how Dotcom was ‘tortured’ in prison

Internet tycoon Kim Dotcom recently spent a month in the Auckland Central Remand prison (ACRP) after the US government persuaded New Zealand police that his file sharing company, Megaupload, was infringing US copyright laws. ACRP is run by Serco, an international conglomerate which runs prisons in a number of countries including New Zealand. In Britain, Serco prisons have been criticised for institutional meanness and forcing prisoners to sleep in toilets. In 2011, the company was criticised over the suicide of a 14 year old boy who was mistreated by staff in one of its British prisons. Serco also runs the overcrowded Australian Federal Detention Centre for asylum seekers at Christmas Island. In November 2010, 230 asylum seekers in the island prison began a hunger strike; 20 prisoners sewed their lips together and one Iraqi Kurd, a man in his 30s attempted to commit suicide. In 2011, the New Zealand Government allowed Serco to take over the management of ACRP which is primarily used to hold prisoners on remand.

14,000 New Zealanders are sent to prison on remand every year. Mr Dotcom was also on remand, denies he has done anything illegal, and appears to have a good case. But according to the NZ Herald, he was treated like a convicted criminal. He reports that on the first night he wasn’t allowed blankets or toilet paper and was woken up every two hours. The mattresses used by prisoners are really thin (about two inches) and the beds are solid concrete. Most prisoners find them uncomfortable – let alone someone as big as Dotcom. In other words he was subject to sleep deprivation – which he said felt like torture.

The Minimum Prison Standards

Sleep deprivation is no joke. In fact it is an enhanced torture technique used by the CIA because it leaves no scars or visible signs. When taken to extremes, it drives the victim insane. New Zealand legislation covering the treatment of prisoners is contained in the Corrections Act passed in 2004. Section 5 of the Act requires the Department to ensure facilities are “operated in accordance with rules (and regulations) in this Act and… are based, amongst other matters, on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.” UN Rule 31 states: “All cruel, inhuman or degrading punishments shall be completely prohibited.” Such treatment is also illegal under Article 16 of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment which New Zealand signed in 1985.

Sleep deprivation is not the only inhumane treatment Dotcom was subject to. He was also taken to and from court in a prison van – chained to a metal seat inside a small cage. This aggravated a back injury. He told the NZ Herald that one trip caused shockwaves of pain up his back, after which he required treatment in the prison medical unit. He couldn’t walk so Serco staff dragged him to the unit on a blanket where he was given Paracetamol and a wheel chair.

Violence and suicide in NZ prisons

Despite such incidents, the Corrections Department would have us believe that NZ prisons are safe and humane. Let’s look at the facts. The number of inmates with gang affiliations has doubled in the past five years and, what a surprise – the number of prisoners attacking other inmates has also doubled. In May 2010, James Palmer (an American) became the first prison officer to be killed in a New Zealand prison after he was punched by an inmate and cracked his skull on the concrete floor. In 2011, the number of serious assaults on staff went up by 600% on the on previous year. Prisoners are raped and many commit suicide.

The stress of being on remand while waiting for police to bring the charges to court is often a contributing factor to these suicides. In 2010, four residents from Feilding killed themselves while awaiting trial or sentencing in the space of three months. Statistics released by the chief coroner’s office found that 27 prisoners on remand have killed themselves in the last few years and the number of remand prisoners who commit suicide has more than doubled in the last two years. In 2010 in addition to those who died, another 190 prisoners attempted suicide.

Denial of appropriate pain medication

Because of increased levels of violence, prisoners sometimes end up in hospital – with broken limbs, head injuries or perhaps an eye poked out. Prisoners also get sick with cancer, heart disease, abscesses and infected teeth. Sometimes they have back injuries like Kim Dotcom. But no matter how bad the pain, Paracetamol is all they get. If they have an operation in hospital and need morphine for pain relief, when they get back to prison, the morphine is taken away.

The Ombudsman recently conducted an investigation into the health and medical treatment of prisoners. His report makes it clear that prisoners are entitled to the same level of health care as anyone else in the community but cites numerous incidences where prisoners in severe pain were denied medically prescribed pain killers. The Ombudsman reported: “We were told by prisoners that they are frequently advised by custody staff, ‘to take paracetamol and lie down’ or ‘paracetamol will fix everything’. Many prisoners told us that paracetamol does not relieve the level of pain they experience.” In a previous post, it was reported that the Corrections Department denies access to certain psychiatric medication; for instance hundreds of prisoners in New Zealand have ADHD but are not allowed Ritalin in prison.

Conclusion

So let’s get the story straight. New Zealand prisons are far from ‘safe’; neither are they ‘humane’. There is no doubt that Kim Dotcom was subject to cruel and inhuman treatment by Serco. He was not the first – and he will not be the last. Cruel and inhuman treatment is a daily occurrence in our prison system; by denying prisoners medication prescribed by specialists, prison health services are complicit in this torture. And let’s not forget that Dotcom’s prosecution is being driven by the United States – a country which endorses the use of enhanced torture techniques at Guantanamo Bay and flights of rendition to allow prisoners to be tortured in other countries. We should keep a close eye on what happens at Serco-run prisons in New Zealand.