Another Law And Order Beat-Up

The Herald must have got bored of flags and union with Australia, because it has returned to a familiar theme.

The headline today proclaims CRIMINALS RUN RIOT ON PAROLE.  You could be forgiven for worrying whether the riot is coming your way, and whether you ought to lock your door. I did hear a bit of noise last night before I went to bed, but just figured that was someone having a party a few doors down. Perhaps it was the criminal mob sharpening their knives and getting high, preparing for the reaping. Should I leave the house or just stay home cowering in fear?

Anyway, the article says:

Forty-three of the country's most dangerous criminals have been convicted of serious violent offences committed while they were already on parole for vicious crimes.

Corrections Department figures obtained by the Herald on Sunday show that as recently as last year, two offenders were sentenced to unlimited prison terms, called preventive detention, for crimes committed when they were released early.

43 sounds like a lot, but is it? The article does not say over what period the 43 were convicted. Was it over ten years? Five? Nor does the article say how many people were on parole during that period. Why was this basic information not included? As an exercise in sensational reporting the article succeeds admirably. But if the purpose of the story is to provide useful information, it fails miserably.

So, while the story presents a picture of criminals out of control, it offers little evidence to prove the point. So I can't help but think "beat up".

That doesn't mean we don't have a violent crime problem in this country. And of course for a victim of any one of the 43 offenders it wouldn't matter how many others there were. But the fact people commit crimes while on parole should surprise nobody. There is plenty of evidence that prison doesn't work well as a rehabilitative measure, so why wouldn't violent people be committing crimes upon their release?

We will always have to endure these horrible stories about people on parole hurting or killing others - unless of course we ensure nobody gets parole. But that isn't realistic or desirable. If we don't let people out of prison early, we would be taking away any incentive for them to behave or reform themselves. Nor could our jails cope with the increased prison population.

So, anyway, let's play the Herald on Sunday's game and agree these figures show there is a crisis in the parole system. What do these figures then mean? They would suggest that prison does not successfully rehabilitate most people. And forget the deterrence argument, because if deterrence worked you would think the people who've been punished would be the last ones to commit further crimes. If imprisoning people doesn't deter or rehabilitate, then the only reasons to imprison are to punish and to keep dangerous people off the streets.

So if we as a society are not prepared to countenance any risk of offenders committing further crimes upon their release from prison, we must lock them up forever. Every single one of them.

Alternatively, we could just accept that the system isn't perfect, and never will be, and that people sometimes reoffend. Does that sound too hard?