Corrections Minister Mark Mitchell’s proposal to scrap short prison sentences in favour of longer ones is an approach that ignores decades of criminological research and the success of evidence-based rehabilitation models, particularly Sweden’s. If New Zealand truly wants to reduce reoffending and build safer communities, we must move beyond punitive incarceration and focus on a humane, rehabilitative corrections system that focuses on reintegration, education, and social support.
Sweden’s prison system operates on the theory that prison is not about punishment, it is about preparing people for reintegration into society. Swedish prisons prioritise education, vocational training, and psychological support, ensuring that inmates leave with the skills and stability needed to avoid reoffending. The results speak for themselves, Sweden has one of the lowest recidivism rates in Europe.
Unlike New Zealand’s overcrowded, underfunded prisons, Sweden’s system focuses on individualised rehabilitation plans. Prison officers are trained as social workers, engaging with inmates to address the root causes of criminal behaviour rather than simply locking them away. This approach reduces crime in the long term, rather than creating a revolving door of incarceration.
Mark Mitchell argues that longer sentences provide more access to rehabilitation, but this ignores the reality that New Zealand’s prison system is already under resourced. Extending sentences without significantly increasing funding for rehabilitation programs will only increase the prison population without improving outcomes, also highlighting the fact that Corrections has been asked to reduce spending by up to 7% in this years budget.
Criminologists have long pointed out that the most effective rehabilitation occurs in community settings, where offenders can access drug and alcohol treatment, mental health services, and employment support without the effects of incarceration. Research consistently shows that community-based sentences lead to lower reoffending rates compared to imprisonment.
Mark Mitchell also acknowledges that his policy would require building more prisons which raises the question, “Is this the best use of taxpayer money”? Prisons are extraordinarily expensive to build and maintain. Instead of investing in more concrete walls, New Zealand should be directing funds toward education, mental health services, addiction treatment, and poverty reduction, all of which are proven to reduce crime in the long term.
Mark Mitchell has spoken about focusing on offering remand prisoners rehabilitation, which currently is not available, a policy I support but only once it is implemented, so lets see if the government delivers on this.
If the government truly wants to reduce reoffending, it must focus on early intervention and prevention. Addressing the drivers of crime, poverty, homelessness, addiction, and lack of education, will produce far better results than simply increasing prison sentences. The evidence is clear, longer sentences do not reduce crime, neither do they rehabilitate offenders more effectively, instead, they waste human potential, tear families apart, and drain public resources.
New Zealand needs a justice system that prioritises evidence-based solutions, not reaction policies that fail to deliver results. If we want safer communities, we must invest in proven strategies, not in more prisons.
Jackie Foster is CEO of Social Justice Aotearoa
Currently there is little effort put into rehab of prisoners in NZ .The mentality of officers is ,once a criminal always a criminal .That being the case how much effort are those officers going to put into rehab of any prisoner .Drug use is rife in our prisons ,so how is that posable ,cell phones are also currency while inside with small businesses set up for the hire which is paid for on the out side .Until we deal with the proper rehab of prisoners ,from drug and mental health point of view we are in fact wasting money locking anyone up .One only has to look to the recent reoffending and ask the question were those offenders properly rehabilitated and fit to be released .If Mitchel and Luxon had their way we would build a prison a year and it would be our biggest industry by far .But it would not fix the causes of the situation .We need to start in the community and eliminate poverty and lack of prospects for Luxons so called bottom feeders ,whom he knows exist ,and is happy too constantly kick about to make himself feel good ,nothing on the crime front will improve .
This post hits the nail on the head—longer prison sentences might feel tough on crime, but they don’t address why people offend in the first place. Sweden’s approach of focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration speaks more to long-term safety than simply extending time behind bars.
These mugs are not gonna change their system to help rehabilitate prisoners in any shape or form. Their mantra is to be tough with their way with no questions asked…..FULL STOP. They have not an iota of interest in the Swedish model. “Aye” Mitchell……..Yo”’
This prick needs to spend 10 years in one of his new pens .
Swedish crime rates are not that low. The rape rate is 24 x that of Singapore, and the violent crime rate 6 x more than that of Singapore.
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Singapore/Sweden/Crime
Singapore has very harsh sentences. Sweden has very soft sentences.
So the author’s claim that harsh sentences do not work is blown out of the water.
Actually Singapore has a lot of focus on rehabilitation, education, re integration into the community ,”second chances ” with a lot of community buy in
They have a 20% recidivism rate after 2 years .NZ?56%….go figure…and Mitchell thinks more of the same will produce results?
Maybe he’s pimping for private prisons and the profit factor