wrong direction
Radio New Zealand reports today that Corrections has been cutting community bail support services. This is absolutely the wrong way to be going.
Firstly, "innocent until proven guilty" is a cornerstone of our judicial system for a very good reason. Putting the burden of proof on the prosecution is supposed to prevent our prisons being filled up with innocent people. We still get innocent people in prison, and we get plenty of people in prison convicted on charges that are more serious than what they actually did, but requiring the prosecution to prove their case reduces the scope for abuse.
Secondly, although there are a whole lot of rules about who gets bail and who grants it - which you can read through here if you're so motivated - there are, as pointed out in that Radio NZ article linked above, a lot of people in prison simply because they have no suitable address to be bailed to. As Radio NZ reports:
As of 30 June, 41 percent of the prison population, or 4616 prisoners, were on remand, meaning they were being held behind bars while they waited for their trial or to be sentenced.
The majority of them had not been found guilty of any crime, and Thode said some of them were only there because they were homeless.
"We've all got clients that are in custody who would get bail otherwise, but for the fact that there's not a roof over their heads that we can secure."
"The majority of them had not been found guilty" means they're still working through the trial process and have not yet been convicted. There is no guarantee they will be convicted. Many of those who are convicted will then be sentenced to time served.
And they're stuck in remand where, historically, not a whole lot has happened for people. It's hard to get people treatment when you don't know how long they'll be inside for. Also, rumour consistenly has it that the gangs love remand, seeing it as a fertile recruitment ground.
Next up in the article is this:
In July this year, Corrections cut funding to 11 iwi-run bail support services, saying a review found there was no evidence the programmes were delivering benefits for taxpayer money.
That claim makes no sense to me.
I used to run a bail house. In my time there, of all the residents who were still in the house at sentencing, only one got a custodial sentence. The others all got something community-based. The residents were able to access jobs, counselling, medical care, services they needed, because they were in the community.
Was it perfect? No, not by a long shot. There were plenty who breached their conditions or reoffended while on bail or home detention, and so were arrested and imprisoned. But the point is, they at least had opportunities that would have been denied to them had they been stuck in prison, and many made full use of those opportunities.
Instead of cutting services like this, we need to be building them up. Keeping people out of prison and in the community where they can access the things they need to stay on the right side of the law does so much more to reduce crime than throwing people in prison.