Judith Collins – Attacking the ‘Straw Man’

The Hon Judith Collins speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust Conference effectively mounted a “straw man” argument to support her contention that those who support offenders are undermining the criminal justice system, says Kim Workman, of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. “She created an illusory opponent, and then attacked it, leaving the listener with the impression that the opponent existed. Given that the speech was delivered to a group of seriously violated and traumatised victims, the tactic turns from being simply a political gambit, to one that represents an effort to convince victims that they have enemies ‘out there’ who have no interest in their well being.

Her ‘straw man’ was someone who :

• Did not want victims to succeed

• Believes that violent criminals are somehow not responsible for their actions

• Believes that other people (society?) are totally responsible for the offender’s behaviour

• Speaks out in opposition whenever justice reforms serve victims rather than the offender

• Wants the justice system to favour criminals

“I have extensive networks within the justice system, and try as I might, I cannot identify any significant person or organisation with that set of beliefs. The Ministry of Justice briefing to the Drivers of Crime seminar, makes it clear that the causes of crime are many; biological, developmental life-course, psychological, sociological, geographical and economic.”

The straw man tactic has been used before by the Minister. At the 2009 Sensible Sentencing Conference she said much the same. In a variation on the theme, she proposed that those who chose to work with offenders, implicitly condoned their criminal activity, or had an investment in the status quo :

“We face opposition from people who put the rights of criminals before the safety of the police and public. There are people out there who would rather look out for the country’s burglars, thieves, rapists and killers than those who put their lives on the line to uphold the law”.

I responded a month later, in a speech to the Victim Support Conference:

“If there is one message I want to get across this morning, is that we must actively resist this idea that you are either for offenders, or for victims. We must reject any proposition that potentially divides us. Some of us deal with offenders, some with victims, and many work with both. To rate one activity above the other is unhelpful and counter productive.

For those of us working with victims, it is a small step from taking an anti-offender stance, to conveying those feelings to victims. The first calls for justice from victims may in fact be calls for vengeance or punishment. Such feelings are legitimate, but giving them immediate satisfaction may not further the healing process.”

“Proposals that advocate people work together to reduce harm, do not suit a political agenda which has as its purpose, instilling fear and division. The difficulty that the Minister has, is the growing evidence that those who are making the most progress in reducing crime, are not confining themselves to working with and supporting victims or offenders, but are working effectively with both. The Salvation Army’s work with the homeless and with family violence victims, surely contributes to their understanding when running drug rehabilitation programmes for Mongrel Mob Whanau. Prison Fellowship runs Sycamore Tree, a programme which brings victims and offenders together is making a significant contribution to the healing of victims, and the transformation of offenders. Whanau Ora, the government’s own policy, is predicated on the basis that when whanau help whanau, they are working with both saints and sinners, and some who are both.

Out of those encounters comes an appreciation of the need to treat victims and offenders, witnesses and suspects, with respect and dignity, the recognition of their humanity, and an active regard for their basic rights as a human being, whatever their circumstance.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media