NZ Politics

562 readers

1 users here now

Kia ora and welcome to the NZ Politics community!

This is a place for respectful discussions about everything that's political and kiwi

This is an inclusive space where diverse opinions are valued, but please don't be a dick

Other kiwi communities here

Banner image by Tom Ackroyd, CC-BY-SA

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Dave

RaoulDuke

Boot camps for young offenders are back – the psychological evidence they don't work never went away (www.rnz.co.nz)

submitted 5 months ago by Dave to c/politics

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Analysis - "Boot camps" for young people who commit serious offending are coming back. The coalition government has promised to pilot "military-style academies" by the middle of the year - despite a wealth of international and New Zealand evidence that boot camps do not reduce reoffending.

It has been encouraging to see this evidence receive extensive media coverage and expert analysis. Less encouraging, however, has been the minister for children's reported rejection of expert advice that the boot camp model is flawed and ineffective.

So, why do we keep returning to interventions that don't work? For boot camps, there are at least three possible explanations.

First, they appeal to politicians who want to appear tough on crime, while also saying they are encouraging rehabilitation options.

Second, boot camps seem to have a strong appeal to common sense: people want to believe structure and military discipline can turn around young people's lives, and this belief outweighs contradicting evidence.

Third, boot camps can take different forms, so evidence of their ineffectiveness can be avoided by claiming, as the minister has, that improvements will be made this time.

This seems unlikely, however, when the core features that characterise boot camps - strong discipline in particular - are a main reason they don't work. To understand why, we need to look at the psychology of punishment and behaviour change.

top 11 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] deadbeef79000 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

More "tough on crime" theatre.

$100 says NActFirst have cronies lined up to provide said boot camps.

I suspect, without evidence, that fully funding school lunches would probably reduce youth crime better than boot camps.

[–] Dave 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I've been thinking about this. If we ignore any possible kickbacks and focus only on the politics, what do National have to gain from solving youth crime?

Obviously there's a short term "we reduced youth crime" selling point. But on the other hand, National got into power (and has done in the past too) partly based on selling their hard on crime stance. Playing up RAM raids (which from previous discussion we know is a short term rise in a long term downward trend) and every news article to breed fear, while never mentioning the downward trend.

Basically, National are probably well aware that one of their selling points is looking like they are being tough on crime. And they are probably well aware that boot camps don't work. But the brilliant thing about the plan is they can look like they are doing a lot to solve crime while actually doing nothing (maybe making it worse) so that next time they are out of government they can use it to get more votes and get back in.

Just my pessimistic take.

[–] absGeekNZ 4 points 5 months ago

Sometimes the cynical view is the only logical explanation.....but I suspect that you can't ignore the kickbacks. I don't know if NAFf; can think that far ahead; Occam's razor leads me to providing kickbacks as the primary reason for the camps.

[–] kaffiene@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Fear has always worked to motivate conservative voters. Fear of youth criminals coupled with some simple, plausible sounding wrong "solution" is electorial gold for venal politicians and this three headed beast is as venal as they come

[–] liv 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If I had to guess I'd say it's a combination of your first two reasons and that thing we were talking about the other day which is a large segment who just really like punishing people.

Such a collossal waste of money - both the money spent on this placebo and the money spent on the inevitable inquiries into child abuse, sensitive ACC claims etc in 15 or 20 years' time.

[–] Dave 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

These kids are probably not getting the support they need at home or school. Imagine if we spent the money on support programmes to help them grow up into productive members of society, instead of this performance.

[–] liv 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's the thing! We know from evidence that programmes for youth offenders really do work. Just not boot camp style programmes. Vocational and counselling combos are where it's at.

[–] Dave 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Why don't we have counseling lobbyists making bribe donations to politicians instead of prison companies!

[–] liv 3 points 5 months ago

Yes! Why is it always the evil side that does the bribery!

[–] AWOL_muppet 5 points 5 months ago

Oh no... Not again?

Classic national. Great article, though

[–] Xcf456 4 points 5 months ago

There seems to be a tonne of evidence setting out they don't work, yet they keep coming back because theyre popular with the electorate.

I wonder how much research there is about how opinions about boot camps are formed, and what might change them because all the studies and evidence out there doesn't seem to have a lot of cut through for many people.