Opening of the Crime and Justice Research Centre

Greetings: Chancellor Rosemary Barrington, Vice Chancellor Stuart McCutcheon, Dr Gabrielle Maxwell, Director, Crime and Research Centre, Professor Phillip Stenning

Nga hau e wha, nga iwi e tau nei, tena koutou katoa.

E nga mana, e nga reo, rau rangatira ma, tena koutou, tena koutou, tena koutou katoa.

It is an honour to be invited to participate in the launch of this Specialist Applied Research Centre:  the Crime and Justice Research Centre.

Victoria University of Wellington has been well known for its support of the Institute of Criminology, which perhaps I might describe as parent of the new Research centre.  That Institute has produced wide-ranging research in varied fields - most notably for me in the area of juries and their involvement in the criminal justice system.

Although in the last eighteen months I have not followed closely the reaction to that piece of research, I know that it has gained worldwide attention, being a first in depth study of jurors' attitudes to the work they have been called upon to do in our criminal justice system.  It has also been of immense benefit to judges as they strive to work constructively with juries in trials the length and breadth of New Zealand.

Of course that is but one of many notable contributions that the Institute has made to the understanding of the criminal justice system in New Zealand.  The international reputation it has developed in the fields of youth justice and restorative justice, and the contributions that the Institute's staff have made to family law, family violence, policing, legal services, crime prevention, victim surveys and programme evaluations have been warmly received by those who work in the criminal justice system.

The Crime and Justice Research Centre builds on the work that has been done to date, and on the reputations of the staff in the Institute of Criminology.  But it will go much further.  It is intended to foster close relationships between Government and non-Government agencies, the judiciary, and other key players within the crime and justice sector. 

It is hoped that the Institute's work will demonstrate New Zealand's leadership in the study of crime and justice by contributing the knowledge of the Centre's scholars to the international community.

As one who has spent much of her adult life involved with issues of crime and justice, I welcome this initiative warmly.  There is an ongoing need to provide leadership in the development of policy in crime, justice and issues of punishment.  Such leadership, in order to be positive, requires well-researched evidence on which to base policy.

So, too, the Courts need accurate and reliable information for crafting sentences which will combine prevention of re-offending, punishment, rehabilitation and some form of reparation for the victims of crime.  This is what the Institute will seek to provide.

Crime and punishment have occupied the minds of society since well before Dostoevsky wrote the novel, and today the New Zealand public continues the debate, sometimes basing its views on research, other times on the emotion of the moment, usually following a particularly hideous crime, and occasionally basing the arguments on sheer myth. 

Judges too are members of the public. Judges are from time to time provided with research which indicates what sort of sentencing might have the best outcomes - and by outcome we all fervently hope for a reduction in re-offending. But judges must try offenders and sentence convicted criminals, while caught in a web of pity for the victim, the need to do justice to the offender, with one eye on what sentence might be the most effective, and all the time unable to answer the public's cries for harsher and harsher sentences.

Judges work to certain 'principles' when sentencing.  For example:

  Prison does not reform.  At best it can keep the public safe from violent offenders and at worst, educate prisoners to be more efficient criminals on their release.

  Most offending will level off or stop from about the age of 25 years.  But, by contrast, domestic violence will occur at all stages of a relationship and the perpetrator can be any age from teenager to elderly.

The difficulty with these "principles" is that Judges are not sure whether they really are principles or are simply myths that they cling to in order to provide a systematic framework for sentencing.

But if for instance the principle that prison does not reform is based on well conducted research, how can that be adequately communicated to a public which, in its grief and fear of violent offending, consistently calls for more and greater punishment.  How can a Judge remain objective, and do justice in the eye of that storm?

This is where the Crime and Justice Research Centre will have its greatest challenge.  It hopes that its reputation as a voice of reason in the increasingly emotive debates about the origins and solutions to crime will provide the anchor for the development of criminal justice policy, for the education of the public, including the Judiciary, and will help moderate excesses at both ends of the scale. 

Reasoned responses are needed when voices call for extreme punishment but ordinary members of the public cannot cope with the logical outcome of more prisons nearer to our homes.

So too clear, unbiased information is vital so the public understands that imprisoning people costs huge sums of money and, as I have said, is as likely to deliver better qualified criminals into the community, as reformed men and women, anxious to play a positive part in the community where they will live.

Lest anyone misunderstand me, let me say clearly that all Judges know that prison has its place, that it is a sentence designed to protect the community, and as a sentence of last resort, may have some impact on those whose criminal offending is gradually escalating.  But it is no place for our young men and women to languish if there is an alternative.

This Specialist Applied Research Centre: The Crime and Justice Research Centre has set itself an ambitious goal.  It aspires to be a body that speaks publicly about crime and justice issues.  It wants to comment freely in the media about what will often be highly charged political issues.

The Centre will face its own particular challenges.  Its scholars will find themselves in the spotlight, not a universally enjoyable experience.  Or they may find themselves engaged in "hard to win" arguments with people or organisations who are skilled and trained in having and giving opinions. 

The Centre will also be taking on a big responsibility.  Your original, purely philosophical raison d'etre may be to improve the workings of justice in New Zealand through sharing with New Zealanders, independent, well-grounded research.  But on occasion you may well find yourselves, inadvertently or otherwise, taking on the role of opinion-shaper.  You may not be able to let your findings simply speak for themselves.  Instead you too, may find yourselves the subject of headlines, and sound bytes, as you strive to advocate a particular point of view based on your research.

As we all know, research of itself does not necessarily change opinion. Let me illustrate with one example.  The sentence of corrective training which was first introduced in New Zealand  20 years ago as the successor to borstal and other types of youth prison.  It was designed as an alternative to imprisonment as a "short, sharp, shock" for young offenders.  Available as a fully custodial sentence to be applied to offenders between the ages of 16 and 19 years, it was a sort of boot camp in which young criminals were rousted from their beds at an early hour, worked hard, and at the end of three months were automatically released.  It was envisaged that there would be improvements to their health and fitness, and that they would gain an understanding of the benefits of discipline.

I should say here as an aside, the thought of incarcerating someone for his own good has always seemed contradictory to me.

The Justice Department evaluated the sentence in 1983, and found that 71% of the trainees were reconvicted within a year of release. In the usual under-stated way, the summary concluded that :  "corrective training is not fulfilling its primary policy objective or reducing re-offending by the experience of a punitive but fair sentence". 

Later in 1997, a Department of Corrections memorandum to the Minister of Justice stated that a five year follow-up study of the reconvictions of all persons convicted in 1988 found that corrective training had a reconviction rate of 92 per cent.

Nonetheless the sentence remained an available option.  It also achieved an own-goal - the highest reconviction rate of any sentence.  And it was not until the Sentencing Act was passed earlier this year that the sentence of corrective training was finally abolished.

So research alone is not sufficient to persuade.  Other measures may be needed and these measures, such as giving media interviews, do not come naturally and nor are they a welcome part of the work of most academics.  The way in which you use your work to help develop policy will therefore be among your bigger challenges. 

It may be that by providing the information to the public, a well-informed non-governmental organisation will take up the role of lobbyist.  Nonetheless it will be your work, your research, your opinions, that are the foundation for the shaping of public opinion.  You will need to exercise your role with care and due consideration.

The fact that the well respected Institute of Criminology at Victoria University has been the parent of the Crime and Justice Research Centre is, however, its primary recommendation. 

I would like to thank the Victoria University of Wellington for extending its research intensive activities in a way that will benefit the whole of society - those who are or will be the victims of crime, the offenders who may as a consequence of the research to be undertaken have a greater chance of reducing reoffending, those who serve in the criminal justice sector and the wider public. 

It is also a matter of significance that this Centre has been described by the University as a "key milestone towards the University's 10-year strategic plan to establish at least ten applied research centres in areas of specialist research excellence".

The Crime and Justice Centre is the second to be established.  I am satisfied that the excellence of the University's research will be enhanced by the new Centre.  I congratulate those who have had the vision, not only to establish this Centre, but also to plan for a total of ten during the next decade.

This commitment to the provision of soundly based research will be of enormous benefit to society in the policy area, for those who must work in the field of criminology, and for the public generally. 

I now have much pleasure in declaring open this Specialist Applied Research Centre, the Crime and Justice Research Centre.

May those who work in it and those who will benefit from it enjoy every success.