Analysis Of Penal Populism

Pratt and Clark’s (2005) cultural argument of penal populism ignores the inequalities of New Zealand, in which the structural explanation would stress that inequalities reflects the deep foundational ways of how it shapes the criminal law and the justice system (Workman & McIntosh, 2013). The structural perspective recognizes that New Zealand’s prison population has increased substantially over the last 40 years, simultaneously, so has the inequality between the rich and poor (Workman & McIntosh, 2013). Thus, New Zealand’s punitiveness reflects on the way in which growing inequalities feeds the desire for harsher punishment, and neo-liberalism reflects this relationship (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). The introduction of the economic system of neo-liberalism in 1984 focused on individualism, little government intervention and social support, which created the gap between the

New Zealand’s punitiveness index shows that the incarceration rate peaked at the year of neo-liberal reform, however, the rate really escalated in 2002 after punitive legalisations had passed following the introduction of penal populism (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). This is a crucial period to explore the responses to crime after the introduction of penal populism, simultaneously the inequality that was happening as well. By 2002, New Zealand had become a neo-liberal country for over 15 years, and this shaped the different responses of penal populism with the rise of new inequalities (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). Neo-liberal economic reforms dramatically escalated inequality in New Zealand, social conditions were declining and sections of the population became excluded from work (Cavadino & Dignan, 2006). Those most targeted by New Zealand’s prison growth are predominantly young Maori men, who are excluded from employment and education, and suffered terribly under the neo-liberal reform (Pratt,