Suchergebnisse

AbstractOver the past 30 years the restorative justice (RJ) movement has become increasingly accepted within the creases of formal justice systems everywhere, but most especially within the systems of settler‐colonial states. From a critical Indigenous perspective one especially powerful driver for the elevation of RJ to its current exalted place in state crime control, has been the purposeful utilisation of Indigenous cultural artefacts by the movement to market their wares. Utilising research on Indigenous peoples' experiences of state‐centred RJ programmes, this article challenges claims made by RJ practitioners and state functionaries regarding the emancipatory potential of RJ practices for Indigenous peoples residing in settler colonial contexts.

Earlier this year the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little announced the latest in a long line of reviews, taxpayer-funded summits and inter-agency, 'wholeof-government' projects stretching back to the late-1980s, all aimed in some form or other, at making the criminal justice system more 'safe' and 'effective'. Officially launched at a summit held in Porirua in August 2018, the aim of the latest review is to reduce New Zealand's prison muster by 30% over the next 15 years. And unsurprisingly, given our significant over-representation in prisons, a specific focus of the review is on identifying ways to significantly reduce Māori over-representation in the prison population. This commentary represents a modest offering in response to the current government's stated aim of making the justice system safer and more effective, and to reduce the prison muster, and it is based on two core arguments, namely that successive governments and the public service have failed to reduce offending and imprisonment and that successful solutions require community empowerment and government/public service accountability.

Indigenous Criminology is the first book to comprehensively explore Indigenous people's contact with criminal justice systems in a contemporary and historical context. Drawing on comparative Indigenous material from North America, Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, it addresses both the theoretical underpinnings to the development of a specific Indigenous criminology, and canvasses the broader policy and practice implications for criminal justice. Written by leading criminologists specialising in Indigenous justice issues, the book argues for the importance of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies to criminology, and suggests that colonialism needs to be a fundamental concept to criminology in order to understand contemporary problems such as deaths in custody, high imprisonment rates, police brutality and the high levels of violence in some Indigenous communities. Prioritising the voices of Indigenous peoples, the work will make a significant contribution to the development of a decolonising criminology and will be of wide interest

Indigenous Criminology is the first book to comprehensively explore Indigenous people's contact with criminal justice systems in a contemporary and historical context. Drawing on comparative Indigenous material from North America, Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, it addresses both the theoretical underpinnings to the development of a specific Indigenous criminology, and canvasses the broader policy and practice implications for criminal justice. Written by leading criminologists specialising in Indigenous justice issues, the book argues for the importance of Indigenous knowledges and methodologies to criminology, and suggests that colonialism needs to be a fundamental concept to criminology in order to understand contemporary problems such as deaths in custody, high imprisonment rates, police brutality and the high levels of violence in some Indigenous communities. Prioritising the voices of Indigenous peoples, the work will make a significant contribution to the development of a decolonising criminology and will be of wide interest.

It has been nearly 15 years since the 2007 anti-terrorism police raids targeting the Ngāi Tūhoe (Tuhoe) iwi (tribe) who reside in the center of New Zealand's North Island. The violent treatment inflicted upon Tūhoe by New Zealand Police and the Security Intelligence Service (SIS) raised questions around the policing and punishing of Indigenous expressions of dissent. In light of recent events, revisiting how policymakers addressed the Raids offers much-needed critical analysis of the policing and surveillance of Māori in the contemporary context. This qualitative study seeks to understand how policymakers framed the 2007 Raids in discussions of crime control policy after the fact. A content analysis of Hansard's (parliamentary) debates of the 2009 Organised Crime Bill reveals that the Raids emerged primarily in discussions to expand police powers and implement harsher penalties for gang-related activity. Green, Māori, and the Labor parties framed the Raids as an act of state violence, a failed operation, a waste of taxpayers' dollars, and a repeat of similar, historical acts of state violence against the Tūhoe people. Taking the Raids as a point of departure, the second part of the paper argues that two key events reveal a continuing project focused on the extensive policing and surveillance of Indigenous bodies in Aotearoa New Zealand: (1) the Armed Response Team (ART) trials of 2020, and (2) the ongoing extralegal photographing of Māori youth by law enforcement. These events are discussed as chronic acts of violence that lead to different life outcomes for survivors.

This article critically analyses the role that criminological theory and specific policy formulations of culture play in New Zealand's state response to Māori crime. We begin by charting policy responses to the "Māori problem" during the 1980s to the 2000s, with a particular focus on policies and interventions based on theorising that Māori offending is attributable to loss of cultural identity, through to the current preference for risk factor and criminogenic needs approaches. The second part of the article critiques strategies employed by administrative criminologists who, in partnership with the policy sector, attempt to elevate their own epistemological constructions of Indigenous reality in the policy development process over that of Indigenous knowledge and responses to social harm.