Letter to APCP      Thinking Outside the Cell    Defined Terms    Baker's Dozen Problems      Articles & Reports - Bibliography 

 

Two Not-For-Profits associated with the Criminal Justice System profess to be a communication "facilitator" amongst -

*        "professionals, practitioners, academics and students"; or

*        "a voluntary association of individuals, departments and organisations representing a wide cross section of interests and disciplines, including branches of the criminal justice system, courts, police, corrections, prisons, mental health services, criminology and ethnic minority groups.",

to enable development of the Criminal Justice System.  However, when the Writer approached each of them, these two Not-For-Profits appear to have forgotten their respective charters

 

Preamble

A fundamental tenant of micro economics is that the market place is where buyers and sellers gather together and negotiate a supply price and a demand quantity, generally achieved when buyers in an homogenous market buy from the cheapest sellers first. 

A single provider/supplier in a monopoly market enjoys market power and can usually charge a higher price. Again, suppliers in an oligopoly market will normally extract a reasonable profit margin by differentiating their product/s from its competitors. 

In a homogenous market under 'perfect competition' there is complete knowledge of the market with a large number of buyers and sellers (eg milk, bread eggs, petrol, etc.).  Little scope exists for a provider/supplier to charge above the market rate, because other providers/suppliers will sell at the market price.

 

What has fundamental economics theory got to do with the above webpage title?

The Criminal Justice System, in particular each Australian state's Corrective Services, is not paid for by buyers, but rather funded by the Public Purse.  Hence, a lot of the usual Argy Bargy between providers and acquirers to max. return at the lowest price for the optimum product/service is not at play, because payments from the Public Purse are not renowned for Argy Bargy in order to -

A.     snavel the lowest price; or

B.     ensure cost-effective delivery of the optimum product or service.

 

 

Hence, material taxpayer funded monies is being expended within the Criminal Justice System, in particular Corrective Services (Prisons & Community Corrections), with precious little public scrutiny, or common sense, or an understanding of the Punishment practices observed by all, except in some countries during the last scintilla of Homo sapiens presence on terra firma ie. over the last 125,000 years circa.

 

There are a couple of Not-For-Profits associated with the Criminal Justice System that profess to be a conduit to facilitate improving it:

One Not-For-Profit, CrimNet, asserts to enable:

 

 

 

 

 

         "regular and instant communication between criminal justice professionals, practitioners, academics and students in Australia and overseas"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another Not-For-Profit, Australian Crime Prevention Council, asserts that it -

 "......is a voluntary association of individuals, departments and organisations representing a wide cross section of interests and disciplines, including branches of the criminal justice system, courts, police, corrections, prisons, mental health services, criminology and ethnic minority groups."

 

Over three months from Oct 2018, the Writer asked (in emails) the above two Not-For-Profits for assistance to enable folk with some understanding of the Criminal Justice System, that wanted to address its patent deficiencies/failings, to Peer Review his Thinking Outside the Cell  Discussion Paper that he had expended +300 hours R&D'ing.

 

 

The 1st Not-For-Profit that the Writer approached was CrimNet.  Its website asserts/invites:

  "CrimNet is an electronic criminal justice information network, sponsored by the Sydney Institute of Criminology. It aims to fulfil the need for a means of regular and instant communication between criminal justice professionals, practitioners, academics and students in Australia and overseas"

           "Would you like us to feature information for you?

            Get in touch with us          

   If you or your organisation would like us to feature criminal justice news, publications, events or job opportunities, please send us an email. Please include all relevant details and information and we will ensure it is included in the next edition of CrimNet. There is no cost associated with advertising criminology and criminal justice news and information through CrimNet."

The Writer became aware of the above CrimNet website at Sydney University (sponsored by the Sydney Institute of Criminology) from an Emeritus Professor at ANU Canberra, Peter Grabosky, peter.grabosky@anu.edu.au.  Peter had written various papers on crime and punishment many moons ago.  The Writer's opening email to Peter Grabosky sent 10 Oct 2018 referred to his paper titled 'ON THE HISTORY OF PUNISHMENT IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND that the Writer had sourced from AUST & NZ JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (July 1991).

 

Peter Grabosky's response email sent 11 Oct 2018 included:

May I suggest the following:

Send a brief paragraph describing  your work to the moderated bulletin board of Australian criminologists, CRIMNET, inviting people who share your interests to contact you directly.

crimnet@law.usyd.edu.au 

I wish you every success with your work.

 Peter Grabosky responded again on 11 Oct:

Phil:

I would start with this address in the first instance: law.criminology@Sydney.edu.au

The Writer emailed crimnet@law.usyd.edu.au twice (14 Oct 2018  &  6 Nov 2018) and emailed crimnet@law.usyd.edu.au once on 19 Nov 2018.  The detail in the Writer's emails and his attachments evidence that he had expended a considerable time in preparing all three of those emails and making them pertinent to CrimNet's above written representations and purpose as a 'facilitator function' between "... criminal justice professionals, practitioners, academics and students in Australia and overseas"

Notwithstanding the above representations of CrimNet's charter/focus, and its third party Public Purse funding source, the Writer did not receive a response to any of his three email requests for assistance for concerned folk with some understanding of the Criminal Justice System to 'peer review' his Thinking Outside the Cell  'discussion paper' that he sent to both  crimnet@law.usyd.edu.au  or  law.criminology@Sydney.edu.au

Peter Grabosky's email sent 22 Jan 2019 then suggested that the Writer approach The Australian Crime Prevention Council that professes to be:

 "a voluntary association of individuals, departments and organisations representing a wide cross section of interests and disciplines, including branches of the criminal justice system, courts, police, corrections, prisons, mental health services, criminology and ethnic minority groups."

The Writer downloaded the Australian Crime Prevention Council's  Constitution & Rules, studied its relevance and sent a pertinently worded email to the 'Contact' address of Adam Bodzioch, Treasurer and Public Officer on 25 Jan 2019.

Following no response, the Writer sent a follow-up email on 31 Jan 2019 seeking an acknowledgement of receipt of his email sent 22 Jan 2019.

On 31-Jan-19 Chairman of ACPC, Peter Norman, responded, but opted to commence a fresh email without the Writer's two emails beneath his - always a concerning signal.

Not having heard anything further from ACPC for five weeks, on 4 March '19 the Writer emailed the Chairman of ACPC informing inter alia that he had prepared a Peer Review Form to "facilitate people who want the three unacceptable aspects of our Criminal Justice System mitigated and have the courage of their convictions" to provide their 'peer review'.  That email back to the Chairman of ACPC also 'pasted' in the Writer's two previous emails that he had expended considerable time chronicling the pertinence of his Discussion Paper to a N-F-P with a -

►    Constitution & Rules:

"directed at reducing crime rates, recidivism rates, and the fear of crime and directed at enhancing within the community a sense of safety and a feeling of security and directed at improving the quality of life in society and developing environments where crime cannot flourish"

►    website that professes:

"The Council's objectives include:

·       Assist and promote the prevention of crime;

·       Encourage participation by citizens in the prevention of crime;

·       Provide a forum for the free discussion of crime prevention issues;

·       Develop awareness and better understanding of the problems of crime and methods properly available to prevent it.

Primarily, the Council sees itself as a facilitator - bringing people and organisations with similar goals together."

Peter Norman, Chairman ACPC, email responded on 15 March '19 11:04am:

"Dear Mr Johnston 

As promised, I referred your letter to the Council’s Executive.

However ACPC  is unable to offer a peer review of your material, or to post it to the website."

Again, Mr Norman opted in the email not to provide an audit trail of prior communications, a disconcerting signal to a recipient who had expended several hundred hours R&D'ing well over a hundred papers, articles, documents in Articles & Reports - Bibliography about the patent failings of the Criminal Justice System, in particular the Australian states' administered Corrective Services where a week rarely elapses without another media report of violence within our prison system - many such violence outbreaks etc. chronicled in Baker's Dozen Unsustainable Problems Within Australian Prison System.

The Writer responded to the ACPC Chairman by email (within an hour of receipt) at 11:52am on 15 March 19:    

"Peter 

Could you provide to me the names of the Council’s Executive that opined on my Discussion Paper, Thinking Outside the Cell, that I posted to you on 9 March 2018 on DVD, USB Stick and A4 hardcopy after you failed to respond to my below email sent March 4, 2019 8:10AM. 

I have ‘pasted’ our emails below because politicians and journalists like audit trails of communications.  

Mindful of Clause 4 of ACPC attached Constitution and Rules, I am puzzled at its Executive Council’s decision not to provide to me the contact details one or two people who want the following aspects of the Criminal Justice System materially improved:

1.    Baker's Dozen Unsustainable Problems Within Australian Prison System – Attachment B

2.    Annual Femicide and Filicide murders in Australia – 3rd Attachment and 4th Attachment

3.    Exceedingly high recidivism/re-offending rates in Australia – 5th Attachment."

The Writer has not received a response to the question in his above email back to the ACPC Chairman. 

What possible conclusion could any reader of this page make than that "Providers to the 'System' are Comfy Riding on the Gravy Train, cautious not to Upset the Applecart  or Rock the Boat, because the Gravy Train is money-making for us all"   We are all doing OK out of this gig.  Let's not rock the boat, 'cause some of us might start to miss out!

How else could the following problems that have been mitigated in other countries, and not allowed to manifest in other countries, be allowed to proliferate within the Australian Corrective Services?

1.    Baker's Dozen Unsustainable Problems Within Australian Prison System

2.    Annual Femicide and Filicide murders in Australia

3.    Exceedingly high recidivism/re-offending rates in Australia

Postscript

At the outset of this page, the Writer contended that consumers of goods and services generally get more bang for their buck in market places where there is full disclosure, generally in homogenous 'vanilla' markets under perfect competition.  Alas, because the Criminal Justice System is ostensibly funded by the Public Purse, and is complex, few taxpayers seek to understand the function and utility/usefulness of where their Public Purse is being expended, and if there is a better way. Hence, few taxpayers question the rationale and sensibility of 'caging' as Punishment/Deterrent, with scant emphasis on Rehab.

Too few taxpayers challenge whether the Public Purse expended on Corrective Services (Prisons & Community Corrections), over $4 billion annually, -

A.      of putting lots and lots of felons in tiny steel cages for extended periods as a Punishment and a Deterrent,

B.      where for a few hours each day they associate with other like-minded offenders,

is the best way to Punish, Deter and where possible to Rehabilitate, those felons back as gainfully employed taxpayers. 

Based on extraordinarily high Recidivism Rates, the Baker's Dozen Problems and Quotes from Prison Authorities in both the UK and Australia, opting to cage during the last scintilla of Homo sapiens tenure on terra firma is NOT responsible expenditure of the Public Purse. Some countries have learnt that.  Others are yet to.

The internet, in particular 'user-friendly' social media web development, enables a federal political party with the 'will' to publish a 'discussion paper' or 'discussion papers' to facilitate interested citizens to -

*        "understand the function and utility/usefulness of where the Public Purse is being expended on Prisons & Community Corrections and consider if there is a better way" to Punish, Deter and where possible to Rehabilitate; and

*        express their thoughts/opinions to unearth more cost-effective Punishment/Deterrent and Rehabilitation methods and achieve synergies from likeminded, concerned folk.

 

 

[bottom.htm]