6 key points of National Party crime policy. What is behind “Restoring Law and Order” National’s plan?
Safety discourses hold significant appeal for the population and serve as an effective means to "gain trust" by offering a superficial sense of security. Recognizing this, and acknowledging the strong emotional influence in politics, what ethical standards should we demand from those in power regarding their use of media to promote a narrative of fear and exploit it for their own political advantage?
"What is behind National's policy plan of 'Restoring Law and Order'?"
One of the ongoing focal points of debate from the recent election campaign to the present in New Zealand revolves around safety and crime. “Restoring Law and Order” is National’s crime policy for the current period, it includes a set of policies that aim to increase punishment and strengthen sentences as the main strategy to reduce crime. The document employs abstract language that creates a narrative of fear and allows specific actions to be presented as “solutions” for these, not clearly defined, issues.
Using ambiguous language when presenting policy, especially crime policies, opens up the possibility of reducing human rights. When terms like "justice," "violence," and "safety" are left undefined or vaguely conceptualized, it becomes easier for those in power to manipulate terms in order to serve their own agendas. Getting caught up in discussing the policies without addressing the ambiguity of these concepts implies accepting the terms of the debate as they are presented.
In this blog post, we will analyze the National Party's Law and Order policy plan and uncover the narrative presented by the main figures behind New Zealand's crime policy: Christopher Luxon (Prime Minister) and Paul Goldsmith (Minister of Justice).
Can fear be used in politics? What is the role of emotions in political campaigns?
Fear can be deliberately instilled, constituting a highly effective political strategy. This approach, called the “Shock Doctrine” (Naomi Klein 2007), was extensively employed in the 1980s across the globe. The premise involves inducing fear, often through important events such as war or the installation of dictatorships; or by introducing significant economic destabilization. Once the population is in a state of shock, those in power—typically state institutions and major financial entities—position themselves as authorities on the matter, claiming to possess the sole viable solutions to these well manufactured issues. Today, the same strategy persists, with a more sophisticated grasp of marketing techniques designed for political ends.
The most recent example of a modern method of instilling fear in New Zealand is National's last election campaign, where significant energy has been invested in portraying crime as an urgent matter, making people feel unsafe in their communities. From here, National Party presents itself as saviors while waving the flag of safety.
The formula is easy enough to present: Exacerbate a problem→ instill fear → present an only viable solution.
“This election is about law and order,” were the words of National’s campaign chair Chris Bishop.
In their communication strategy, National Party chose another cheap and familiar political trick: targeting the previous government (Labour) as the main adversary. The tactic of blaming the other Party is emblematic of the bipartisan system that dominates the political field of many social democracies worldwide, where power shifts between two major parties in relatively stable coalitions. Examples include the US with the Democratic-Republican divide, Spain with PP-PSOE parties , or France's Socialist Party-Les Républicains dynamic. New Zealand is well known for the battle between National and Labour. National’s Party boldness is consistently deflecting blame onto Labour without undertaking a deep analysis of the bipartisan system and/or accepting responsibility for their own role in the political arena, despite their long-standing involvement. By relying on the worn-out strategy of holding accountable the opposing party, they dismiss any possibility of self critique.
Crime rate and crime perception in New Zealand.
Is the crime rate increasing in New Zealand ? Which specific types of crime are experiencing true increases? In the current jungle of data it is very difficult for a regular citizen to understand if the crime rate in New Zealand is really increasing. Luxon and Goldsmith's figures focus on a potential increase of up to 33% in serious assaults. However, the numbers about New Zealand crime rate circulating in the media vary widely, ranging from a 12% to a 40% rise in the crime rate, to a staggering 121% increase in the number of reported serious assaults. Of course this is about what sort of figures are selected and how they are presented. With such an overload of information, the traditional practice of fact-checking seems to have fallen by the wayside.
The term "crime" covers a broad spectrum of offenses (13 at least), each with its own subcategories and status (reported, charged, etc). For our analysis, we have selected three specific crime categories and cross-referenced the data from the Ministry of Justice, comparing numbers from 2017 to those from 2023.
Cross-referenced crime data from the Ministry of Justice.
When analyzing police data, we encounter different figures representing reported cases of all types of crime in New Zealand: in 2016, the reported cases numbered 752,666, whereas in 2023, they increased to 1,072,177.
Reported cases may differ from charged cases. For example, in Spain, there has been a notable increase in reported cases of violence against women, reflecting heightened awareness driven by the feminist movement. While the actual number of rape victims may have decreased due to improved street security and increased social awareness compared to the past century, more victims may now feel empowered to report incidents. Overall, this surge in reporting marks progress.
When describing how political campaigns operate, there is a delicate balance between understanding facts and considering how society perceives reality. What we can identify as the "ethics" of a campaign is the fine line between acknowledging the perception of different sectors within the population and appealing to it, while avoiding the creation of a false sense of reality where marketing strategies deteriorate into outright manipulation.
Do crime numbers correlate with crime perception? What are the numbers behind crime perception in New Zealand?
Police released the results of their public perception survey, conducted as part of the New Zealand Crime and Victims Survey. The survey, known as the Police Module (PM), shows that public concern regarding gangs decreased from 39% in March 2022 to 27% in March 2023. Conversely, concern about youth crime increased from 19% to 26% during the same period, reflecting shifts in crime trends, particularly in youth and retail crime, including Ram raids.
The document also shows that, even though it has declined, there still 69% of the public trust and have confidence in the Police. Additionally, 83% of the public believe that the Police treat people professionally, especially during emergency responses.
“Seen alongside the fairly stable crime rates reported by NZCVS, these differences indicate that public perceptions have been driving this decline rather than the reality of people’s direct experience of Police”. New Zealand Police website.
So, overall, is crime an increasing problem in New Zealand? Is National, as they claim, defending one of the biggest concerns of New Zealanders? No, crime is not dramatically increasing in New Zealand, and no, people's perception of crime is not yet what National claims it to be, although it can easily shift. However, this does not diminish the relevance of crime policy. Any level of crime should be taken seriously, and implementing effective policies should remain a priority. Nonetheless, we must also be mindful of the implications of embracing and trusting the narrative presented by the National Party.
Safety discourses hold significant appeal for the population and serve as an effective means to "gain trust" by offering a superficial sense of security. Recognizing this, and acknowledging the strong emotional influence in politics, what ethical standards should we demand from those in power regarding their use of media to promote a narrative of fear and exploit it for their own political advantage?
6 key points of Restoring Law and Order National Plan:
Real consequences for serious crime. Strengthening the sentences.
Better rehabilitation for offenders.
Restricting judges' ability to reduce sentences not more than 40% (with special exemptions).
Cultural reports funds to be cut off.
Increase in numbers of prisoners in a short term.
Youth offender military academy for 15 t o 17 years olds up to 12 months.
The initial three points suffer from a complete absence of substance, and engaging in discussions about practical proposals without challenging the rhetoric would essentially be accepting their terms. What exactly are "real consequences"? Is the National Party assuming that we all share the same definition of what constitutes a real consequence versus a fake one? And what do they mean by "serious crime"? Are they referring to serious offenses where the numbers have actually gone down? Do they consider sexual offenses as serious crimes? Why is there no mention of the increase in sexual offenses in their program? Going further, what does “better” mean when they talk about “better rehabilitation?”? Is it an on jail rehabilitation or an off jail rehabilitation? Which reality have they chosen to create and sell?
Does harsher sentencing help reduce crime?
Research consistently indicates that harsher punishments do not effectively deter crime. Leading sociologists, mainly from the United States, a nation known for its stringent approach to punishment and deterrence, have extensively examined this issue while witnessing a concerning rise in incarceration rates. Among the prominent voices are Franklin E. Zimring and David Brown, whose research on deterrence and its correlation with crime rates spans years. In his 2017 book "When Police Kill," Zimring succinctly states, "The evidence is overwhelming that the threat of a long prison term has little or no impact on the rates at which people commit crime." More contemporary research echoes this sentiment, showing the importance of evidence-based strategies for crime reduction, emphasizing prevention, and addressing the underlying social determinants of criminal behavior
This is an open debate that demands politicians to engage with intellectual rigor. We should not settle for anything less, and if this approach is to be debated, a thorough discussion must exist. Simply inundating the conversation with numbers to the point of exhaustion sets a low standard for the type of discourse the society desires.
Practical challenges from National Party Crime and Justice Policy:
Restricting judges' sentencing discretion:
Reducing judges' ability to reduce sentences by 40%, except in special cases, risks overlooking individual circumstances and potential for rehabilitation, while its effectiveness in deterring crime it's uncertain.
Cutting funds for cultural reports:
Removing pre-sentencing background reports may hinder fair sentencing by disregarding valuable insights into an individual's background and circumstances. Removing this resource could undermine efforts to promote fairness and address systemic inequality within the justice system. It also reverts to one of the most crucial questions in criminology: What are the key drivers of crime, and therefore, it remains essential to continue working on understanding the factors that might prevent people from committing crime?
Increasing prisoner numbers:
A proposed 20% rise in the prisoner population could strain budgets significantly, with costs exceeding $300 million, potentially diverting funds from essential services and long-term crime prevention efforts.
Further consequences of National’s Party crime policy.
Swift on police-community relationship:
National’s fear narrative could lead to a shift towards a more disciplined state, altering the way police interact with society. While New Zealand Police have a worldwide reputation for mild policing and the community widely trusts in the police, there is a risk of a swift departure from that model, potentially eroding trust and the healthy relationship between police and the community. National Party discourses can heavily impact people’s perception of police behavior, which is already experiencing a decline.
Generational impact:
The plan's emphasis on discipline and potential militarization, such as through military academies, may shape a generation growing up in an environment permeated by fear. This could have profound implications for the development of young people and the kind of adults they become, potentially fostering a culture of obedience and susceptibility to manipulation. Additionally, it could disrupt intergenerational connections due to the negative perception of the eldest population towards youth.
Increased surveillance:
The plan may lead to increased surveillance, as evidenced by the installation of cameras in areas like Queenstown (implying that the crime policy prioritizes luxury destinations over other towns). Money that could potentially be used to increase the quality of life for residents is expended on deterrence. While surveillance can enhance security, it also raises concerns about privacy infringement and the erosion of civil liberties, potentially creating a society where individuals feel constantly monitored and scrutinized.
Is law and order being taken seriously in New Zealand?
“We take law and order seriously” said Paul Goldsmith on tvnz1. If this commitment to law and order is genuine, it should manifest in elevating the quality of discourse rather than resorting to manipulating data to construct a false sense of reality, which could have severe repercussions for New Zealand.
The monopoly of violence should be debated at all times by consistently pressuring those in power to be clear with their concepts and to uphold a minimum of ethics when marketing their political campaigns.
