And if you thought the bail system was tickety-boo and doing what it should to keep you and I safe, you might want to think again.
That’s because a report which has just been released under the Official Information Act paints a very different picture of the bail system that I’m guessing you imagine operating here in New Zealand.
It certainly paints a very different picture, as far as I’m concerned.
The overarching message that comes through in this report is that, a lot of the time, when it comes to doing checks on people on bail, the police focus on the wrong ones.
They tend to focus on low-risk offenders because it’s easier to deal with them than high-risk offenders. But also because they don’t really know who is high risk and who isn't.
The Bail Project Management Report - that’s what this report is called - has been obtained by media. And it says just 0.4 percent of offenders are flagged as being high-risk.
That’s not because only 0.4 percent are actually high risk. It’s because the IT systems the Police use aren't up-to-scratch and are failing. Meaning police don’t actually know how many are high risk.
For example, the report says that when the police rely on its automated systems - 0.4 percent of offenders are deemed high-risk.
But when they go through the list of people on bail themselves and flag people they consider to be high-risk, the stat goes from 0.4 percent to 13 percent.
Which says, doesn’t it, that the automated system vastly underestimates the number of high-risk offenders on bail.
Which means that, a lot of the time, we have the police doing more bail checks on people who don’t really need a lot of supervision - and they’re not getting around to check on the more high-risk people, the ones they really should be keeping a close eye on.
Here’s a quote from the report itself: "Current bail checks tend to focus on quantity over quality. For example checking bailees that are convenient to check rather than high priority".
“Convenient to check, rather than high priority”. How about that? That’s the state of the bail system in this country.
The report also says "there is no clear policy or guidance on how to conduct a reasonable bail check”. And what that means is things tend to vary from police district to police district.
There’s also very little oversight to ensure that, when police do a bail check, they’re complying with policy and best practise.
Now a major part of the problem is the huge increase there’s been in the number of offenders on electronically-monitored bail. And that’s expected to increase by another 35 percent over the next 18 months.
The total number of people on bail has dropped. But the number on electronic bail has gone through the roof. And the cops just don't have the systems to cope.
Another interesting fact from this report: offenders on electronically-monitored bail are eight-times more likely to breach their conditions than an offender on home detention.
Now I don't know about you. But I have never heard any politician say this election campaign that they want to throw more money into police IT systems.
They're all banging on about more cops on the beat. But none of them have said anything about the bail system and, more to the point, none of them have told us exactly how bad the bail system is. And how poorly-resourced it is.
But we know now. Thanks to this report. Which says the bail system is failing us. And we deserve much better protection from dangerous criminals.
So, if we don't have the systems to provide a safe bail system, then we need more people behind bars, don't we?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
It certainly paints a very different picture, as far as I’m concerned.
The overarching message that comes through in this report is that, a lot of the time, when it comes to doing checks on people on bail, the police focus on the wrong ones.
They tend to focus on low-risk offenders because it’s easier to deal with them than high-risk offenders. But also because they don’t really know who is high risk and who isn't.
The Bail Project Management Report - that’s what this report is called - has been obtained by media. And it says just 0.4 percent of offenders are flagged as being high-risk.
That’s not because only 0.4 percent are actually high risk. It’s because the IT systems the Police use aren't up-to-scratch and are failing. Meaning police don’t actually know how many are high risk.
For example, the report says that when the police rely on its automated systems - 0.4 percent of offenders are deemed high-risk.
But when they go through the list of people on bail themselves and flag people they consider to be high-risk, the stat goes from 0.4 percent to 13 percent.
Which says, doesn’t it, that the automated system vastly underestimates the number of high-risk offenders on bail.
Which means that, a lot of the time, we have the police doing more bail checks on people who don’t really need a lot of supervision - and they’re not getting around to check on the more high-risk people, the ones they really should be keeping a close eye on.
Here’s a quote from the report itself: "Current bail checks tend to focus on quantity over quality. For example checking bailees that are convenient to check rather than high priority".
“Convenient to check, rather than high priority”. How about that? That’s the state of the bail system in this country.
The report also says "there is no clear policy or guidance on how to conduct a reasonable bail check”. And what that means is things tend to vary from police district to police district.
There’s also very little oversight to ensure that, when police do a bail check, they’re complying with policy and best practise.
Now a major part of the problem is the huge increase there’s been in the number of offenders on electronically-monitored bail. And that’s expected to increase by another 35 percent over the next 18 months.
The total number of people on bail has dropped. But the number on electronic bail has gone through the roof. And the cops just don't have the systems to cope.
Another interesting fact from this report: offenders on electronically-monitored bail are eight-times more likely to breach their conditions than an offender on home detention.
Now I don't know about you. But I have never heard any politician say this election campaign that they want to throw more money into police IT systems.
They're all banging on about more cops on the beat. But none of them have said anything about the bail system and, more to the point, none of them have told us exactly how bad the bail system is. And how poorly-resourced it is.
But we know now. Thanks to this report. Which says the bail system is failing us. And we deserve much better protection from dangerous criminals.
So, if we don't have the systems to provide a safe bail system, then we need more people behind bars, don't we?
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
I had a neighbour, a youngish cop working in South Auckland but living far out of area because he considered his local territory too dangerous for him and his young wife. He said near every incident attended had associated high risk, often involving "once were warrior types"", steeped in the soothing haka, and often on some drug or other. Of course, even with vests, cops are intimidated and fearful. Any strength on their part and they face interminable enquiry and discipline. He quit.Little wonder they seek the soft options.
An ankle bracelet is not enough. Need something like the large square board locked around their neck, as in the Boxer rebellion. The same could be used as a sentence. Would also be effective on ram raiders.
They have theown millions on a gun IT system that doesn't work and continues to rise in cost. So perhaps it is better they leave a bail system, that would be far more complicated, alone.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.