There are people who cycle between benefit and prison. It's highly likely that there's significant overlap between the numbers below.
I've just got the data for 2011.
Benefit ceased for reason of 'in prison' numbered 4,304
Benefit granted for reason of 'released from prison' numbered 3,815
The numbers in 2009 were respectively 4,192 and 3,496
2008 - 3,050 and 3,144
2007 - 2,860 and 3,171
2001 - 3,563 and 4,467
There's a trend there. Interesting. Under a Labour government more people were granted a benefit on release than had a benefit stopped on incarceration. Under a National government, that has reversed.
What can be said for certain is that more people on benefits are going to prison. Of course, it's still only a tiny fraction of the beneficiary population.
But it's quite a large fraction of the prison population.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Perhaps if the amount spent on each person were more closely matched as between the periods of imprisonment and periods of beneficiary; then the periods of imprisonment might be reduced.
That is to say, if we spend say, $15,000 on a person while they are a beneficiary, but 6 to 8 times this when the same person is incarcerated, which are they going to aspire to?
I would dearly love to see a referendum asking for the amount spent on each prisoner to be literally decimated.
I would dearly love to see a referendum asking for the amount spent on each prisoner to be literally decimated.
Some US states have a great system, inmates are charged for bed, board & gaol fees while inside. THIS approach works really well with prison privatization.
If inmates choose not to pay - the state just charge the family for a couple of bullets...
Even simpler way to solve this - anyone who's gone to prison loses all eligibility for a benefit or for super
Benefits - if we must have 'em - are for deserving citizens, not for crims
Johnny, Much of the cost of housing a prisoner must be tied up in staff which are almost 1:1 ratio.
Johnny, Much of the cost of housing a prisoner must be tied up in staff which are almost 1:1 ratio.
all the more reason to pass the costs on to the family/whanua of the criminal involved.
Anon, I'd be happy to see you hauled before the court under something like the late 1800's Destitute Persons Act as the nearest kin, and thus liable for those relatives every debt, even when criminally incurred.
@Lindsay. There are roughly 8,500 corrections staff (Prison, Probation and Contract) and on any given day there are appx. 8,500 custodial prisoners and appx. 44,000 community sentences being administered.
Hardly 1:1.
@Johnny - what a load of pie-in-the-sky tosh.
For example, your cousin who you haven't seen forever, commits a crime and you're forced to pay for their incarceration?
@Anonymous - purile rubbish, why do you even bother posting such tripe?
Not that I particularly care CorrectGuy, but what has my cousin got to do with me. Suggest you check who said what above.
And I don't care what the budget is spent on, Lindsay, I still say that it is something like 10 times what it could be.
In the process of making imprisonment one tenth of the cost, the outcomes could be increased by making prison a place that is ten times more detestable.
CorrectGuy, You are right. I had overlooked the administration of community sentences.
Anon, I'd be happy to see you hauled before the court under something like the late 1800's Destitute Persons Act as the nearest kin, and thus liable for those relatives every debt, even when criminally incurred
Familial responsibility. Works in Singapore - not just for crime, but also for healthcare & education & pensions.
Works so well I seem to remember Roger Douglas promoting the Singaporean model in his valedictory speech.
Or as they say over at Whaleoil:
Cops. Glocks. Problem Solved.
And of course - happens every day in NZ: called family group conferences -- although they focus on the offender, not the victim.
@Johnny, you said: "all the more reason to pass the costs on to the family/whanua of the criminal involved."
and then said:
"...but what has my cousin got to do with me. Suggest you check who said what above."
Which illustrates my point exactly. Why would you try to pass costs onto a family member(s) who may have nothing to do with the offender and/or his/her offending.
Hence my observation that your comment was tosh.
Why would you try to pass costs onto a family member(s) who may have nothing to do with the offender and/or his/her offending.
So, who pays when the offender cannot?
Three options: First, "Society" - by which we mean non-criminal taxpayers who certainly have absolutely nothing to do with the criminal. That's the communism we have in NZ and the "Welfare West" right now.
Second, Familial responsibility as advocated above.
Third, the individual criminal - but since they cannot, bullet to the back of the head. This system is more-or-less that used in the most successful economy on the planet - China. Pay if you can, die if you can't. In practice it is a mix of individual and familial responsibility, and is clearly the most economically efficient approach.
CorrectGuy, You are attributing comments to Johnny that were made by an anonymous commentor.
CorrectGuy
Again you are wrong. I didn't say that. "Anonymous" quoted me, then added it as their own comment. Now piss off, you are annoying me.
Oops sorry Lindsay, immaculate timing of our equal comments.
Anon, I wasn't going to dignify your contribution with a response, but couldn't stomach you having the last word with those idiotic statements.
Of course the state pays. Even under the most liberal night-watchman state, there is the expectation that the state will fulfil its function of protecting its citizens from harm.
Prison fulfils that protection criteria, i.e. as long as they are in prison they can't harm joe average. Therefore the state has an obligation to pay for that protection.
Its the same as the state providing your protection (and paying for it) with the police and military "defence" forces.
The death penalty is a non-answer as the moment you execute an innocent man you've undone any perceieved good you acheived by executing the guilty.
Your arguments really are facile.
52 @Johnny - apologies, I see where I made the mistake.
Although, this is a pearler:
"I would dearly love to see a referendum asking for the amount spent on each prisoner to be literally decimated."
So you'd be happy with less secure prisons, underpaid guards (creating even more corruption), more violence (resulting in higher medical costs), even less rehabilitation (resulting in even more crime).
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of crims and believe our justice system is pathetic in many respects, but your supposed solutions completely misses the mark.
My preference (simply expressed) would be for the majority of prisoners never to be released. If that means x billions more spent in the corrections portfolio, so be it. When they are in prison, they have almost zero ability to perpetuate their criminal habits.
God I hate people putting words in my mouth.
CorrectGuy, if it is your hypothesis that my proposal will have certain repercussions, say so. Don't put your words in my mouth with smarmy little expressions such as "So, you'd be happy with .. ".
I simply don't agree with your unsubstantiated rants, so there is nothing for me to have to "be happy with" or "be unhappy with".
Learn to debate properly. You're getting on my goat, CorrectGuy.
And apart from anything else CorrectGuy, do you not know what the word "referendum" means?
Of course the state pays.
Let's start from the top. Repeat after Maggie: "There is no such thing as [the state]. There are individuals, and there are families. By "the state pays" you actually mean that all taxpayers pay - the people least connected with the criminal.
Even under the most liberal night-watchman state, there is the expectation that the state will fulfil its function of protecting its citizens from harm.
That still comes down to "the state pays" - in otherwords, all taxpayers pay. And you're assuming I'm arguing from a liberal (or leftertarian) position: I'm not. There are conservative solutions to crime that do not rely on the figment of a state, certainly not one all-encompassing state!
Prison fulfils that protection criteria, i.e. as long as they are in prison they can't harm joe average. Therefore the state has an obligation to pay for that protection.
Prison, exile, maiming, and execution all fulfil the protection criterion. Execution fulfils that criterion best - but no doubt has weaknesses with other criteria. Execution is also the most cost effective option - it's the surrounding legal processes that make it expensive in Western "liberal" societies, but it's pretty cheap - see China today, or the Antebellum South for non-citizens.
But none of this requires the taxpayers have to foot the bill. The criminal can pay, their family can pay, some non-state group to which they belong can pay, a charity could pay (surprised the leftertarians don't like that one more).
Its the same as the state providing your protection (and paying for it) with the police and military "defence" forces.
Again: you mean all taxpayers pay. And certainly even in communist countries like NZ or the UK, there is private provision of "police" services alongside (and more effective and efficient than) police provision. Policing is no more a natural monopoly than anything else.
The death penalty is a non-answer as the moment you execute an innocent man you've undone any perceieved good you acheived by executing the guilty.
Rubbish! Your protection criterion is still maximised; the cost-efficiency criterion is still maximised unless you execute so many innocent people that you damage the whole economy.
Killing a few "innocent" citizens is net positive for a deterrence criterion too.
but couldn't stomach you having the last word with those idiotic statements.
tough. I can't help it if you're a communist.
@Johnny
I'm not putting words in your mouth.
You stated that you "...would dearly love to see a referendum asking for the amount spent on each prisoner to be literally decimated"
I can't see how someone could "dearly love" this idea unless that same person wanted to see a positive outcome to the proposition, i.e. per prisoner funding decimated.
Therefore, you would, in my opinion be happy with the outcome of a positive response.
A positive outcome, also in my opinion, would lead to the circumstances that I outlined above, i.e. more corruption within prison staff, more violence in prison, less secure prisons, etc.
To flip that around, if you in fact desired a negative response to the referendum proposition, i.e. per prisoner funding not to be decimated, then why suggest it in the first place?
Your statement implies, in my opinion, that the wider population would agree with your proposition that per prisoner funding should be decimated.
___________________
@whatever Anon, posted the communist comment.
If my statements have led you to conclude that I'm a communist, then you seriously need to do some reading up to better understand political/economic ideologies.
Going back to the second Anon comment, whoever that was, can you post a link that supports your contention about U.S. prisons?
Post a Comment