NSW State Election: Ineffectual action for actions sake.

It has been about 2 months since the liberal party won control of our state in a landslide victory, a victory largely due to the inaction of the previous labour government. As a result the liberal party managed to win the election without making a great deal of promises, they just sat back while the labour party unravelled. So there is not an awful lot of proposed law and order reform on which to comment. However the standard vote winning lines of getting tough on crime while increasing police numbers and powers were predictably bandied about. One particular issue that has been something of a moral panic in the media of late, is alcohol related violence, this has presented the perfect opportunity for the government to "show their virility by adopting harsh law and order measures". (Hogg & Brown 1998 p.1)


http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/news/police/ofarrell-government-to-strengthen-police-move-on-powers.html

This press release given by the NSW Liberal party speaks of the additional 'move on powers' police have been granted in dealing with anti social behaviours as well as the new summary offence they intend to pass regarding being 'intoxicated and disorderly'. This brings me to question whether action is always preferential to inaction? This is not a new law, public drunkenness was decriminalised in NSW as per the Intoxicated Persons Act 1979, as a means of reducing deaths in custody, particularly in the indigenous population. It seems to me that this is a tactic of attempting to appease the public; a means of proving adequacy, appearing tough, which has the vast potential to cause more problems than it can possibly cure. The government is perpetuating pre-existing insecurities and prejudices instead of promoting the opinions of experts; the true facts: the abolition of this law saved lives, so how can its reinstatement claim to do the same? I mean, that is its claimed purpose right: public protection? I would suggest, as past experience indicates, differently.This short sighted, vote winning action is a typical characteristic of what Hogg and  Brown have labelled the "uncivil politics of law and order" (Hogg & Brown 1998). This is just another way in which political leaders manipulate their people, fuelling public anxiety about a perceived crime problem, (which is commonly assumed to be a greater risk than unemployment, health care and environmental damage) to create the illusion they are acting in a meaningful way towards the greater good. (Cohen 1996)


This legislation perpetuates a cycle of what is known as the Indigenous trifecta where someone is arrested for a public order offence (commonly offensive language or public drunkenness), leading to additional charges for resisting arrest and assaulting an officer. (Australian Human Rights Commission). This proposed legislation is a typical example of how all too often those in power see fit to expand the definition of crime to encompass social harms and self victimisation. (Cohen 1996) I ask what is the advantage of criminalising what can only be described as a health issue? Perhaps the criminal justice system in theory seeks to rehabilitate, but statistics of recidivism rates which indicate contrary cannot be overlooked. Our prison system is overflowing as a result of  this overcriminalisation undermining its apparent rehabilitative effect, there simply is not enough resources to reform. This style of action is no more than a means of providing for the ever popular, increasingly punitive response to the 'war on crime'.(Cohen 1996)Whether that crime is actual or perceived matters little. Given this law was initially abolished for a good reason, the over representation of indigenous population in custody and subsequent rate of death in custody, I would argue that this legislation is a poorly considered attempt at appeasing a moral panic that unjustly targets an already over represented minority in the criminal justice system and will have dire consequences.




References


Australian Human Rights Commission 1996, Indigenous Deaths in Custody 1989-1996,  http://www.hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/publications/deaths_custody/ch_4.html

Cohen S 1996 'Crime and politics: spot the difference', The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 47, no. 1, March, pp.1-21

Hogg R & Brown D 1998, 'The uncivil politics of law and order' in Rethinking Law and Order, Pluto Press Australia Limited, Annandale

Hogg R & Brown D 1998, 'Law and order commonsense', in Rethinking Law and Order, Pluto Press Australia Limited, Annandale

Cautious Consumption

I engage with a range of crime media always proceeding with and eye of caution as very few do I perceive as credible. I tend to have the morning and evening news on as background noise, one ear open waiting for something to catch my eye. I also tend to flick through the weekend newspapers browsing for any attention grabbing headlines. Occasionally a headline will catch me eye on my ninemsn homepage or something posted on a friend's Facebook status. Just the other morning in fact I was watching channel 7's Sunrise where the following story was discussed regarding what our prisoners are being fed (in a Victorian prison):


http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/-/watch/24339344/feast-behind-bars/


This video is a response to a front page article which appeared in the Herald Sun entitled "Crims' Rich Feast" displaying what I would assume to be misleading pictures of the kinds of meals one might expect to find in a first class restaurant. I doubt very much that these were the actual meals consumed by the prisoners. Officials claim prisoners are fed on an average budget of $8/day so, is it not possible on Christmas, for example, they were fed roast turkey? One day a year hardly equates to luxurious living. One of the social commentators who appeared in the segment went on to slam the idea of prison Masterchef or similar programming ideas. I disagree, in my opinion while offenders are in jail as punishment such initiatives may make them aware that they have other talents - employable talents - and a life of crime is not a necessary means of survival.


The reason I am cautious in my consumption of crime media is that I find much of the reporting to be biased focusing on "short term, visceral, emotional news coverage of discrete events" (Surette 2007, p. 10) especially in popular media which sells by attempting evoking an emotional response. Often the offender is given a bad rap, which they may or may not deserve, but I feel everyone deserves an equal voice and furthermore a chance to redeem themselves which is all the more harder if no one is willing to give them a second chance as their objectivity has been muddied by misrepresented statistics and emotional 'evidence'. So if I do come across a crime, case or person I find intriguing I will look further into it myself. I'll read blogs, true crime novels or biographies all of which are prejudiced one way or another but this way I'm not regarding the first opinion I hear as fact.


Surette, R 2007, Media, Crime and Criminal Justice: Images, Realities and Policies, Thomson Wadsworth, Canada