|
|
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:
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:
"Would you like us to feature information for you? Get in touch with us
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:
Peter Grabosky responded again on 11 Oct:
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:
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. 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 -
Peter Norman, Chairman ACPC, email responded on 15 March '19 11:04am:
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:
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?
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. |
|
|
|