“Tough on Crime” approach is not working

“National will get ‘Tough on Crime'” said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. “Let us get ‘Tough on Crime'” said Deputy Prime Ministers David Seymour and Winston Peters at various points.

To all three of these parties “tough on crime” is akin to putting an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. It is there to provide treatment after an incident has taken place. No effort is made to stop the incident from occurring in the first place. It is not just my opinion. Former Ministers of the Crown have also spoken out.

A real “tough on crime” approach would be proactive in trying to address the socio-economic causes of it occurring. A significant portion low-level crime such as shoplifting from supermarkets is occurring because many people struggle to afford the basics. The A.C.T./National/New Zealand First response is “well, they would be able to afford the basics if they stopped spending it on cigarettes and alcohol”.

Clearly none of these parties have an understanding of how modern food grants and other assistive measures work. Nearly all have a built-in mechanism to stop the sale of alcohol and beer.

Three “Tough on Crime” failures

A real “tough on crime” policy would not knowingly reinstitute a policy that has demonstrably failed either. This is the case with the infamous boot camp policy. Research found that 17 out of every 20 – 85% in other words – of all participants in the camps would go on to reoffend. Many not only reoffended, but the reoffending was worse than the crimes that got them sent to the camp in the first place.

A real “tough on crime” policy would not use tried and failed policies from other countries. In 2010 the then National-led Government introduced a concept from America. It revolves around the baseball “three strikes” and you are out. It is a policy where after the third serious offence one instantly got 25 years in jail. Aside from judges not being seriously keen on applying it, there are other concerns. For example, the result might be a manifestly unjust sentence and the State having to pay compensation.

And yet the three parties persist.

My experience in Christchurch

In the last 12 months there has been more Police activity on my street than in the last decade. Incidents have included multiple trespassing cases in the disused school over my fence. Last year two people held up a dairy down the road from me and bodily pushed the Chinese lady who owns it against the wall – the attack so upset her, that she closed it for a month.

When I hear “get tough on crime”, that makes me question how well parties understand the drivers of crime. No one should assault a dairy owner simply doing her job, and I hope that the perpetrators went to jail. But no one should ignore the socio-economic drivers of crime.

My solution

First, let us look at how the sentencing regime works in the first place. Is there a problem with how judges sentence serious offenders? Yes. Perhaps the answer is to look at how the sentencing regime is applied before introducing new penalties. Is there a reason why judges pass the sentences that they do? Yes.

The previous Government was targeting a small group of recidivist offenders with a wrap-around socio-economic approach. Many in the group are from broken families where violence, drugs and other problematic symptoms were the norm. Schooling was not a priority and surviving meant stealing things to sell to make money. I would advocate for strengthening the programme and expanding it nationwide in a 2026 context. Interestingly enough, Wraparound support has been in existence since 1997 under guess who?

National.