(Open Letter to the Secretary for Justice
-- slightly edited)
Dear Belinda Clark,
This Report ignores entirely the issue of bias against people on
the basis of sex/gender, and just plunges straight into the process
of discussing bias against ethnic-minority people, as if that was
the only possible and conceivable form of bias on the face of the
Earth. Given that the Ministry of Justice is female-dominated, and
clearly (in my experience over the years) driven by a Feminist ideology,
a naive observer would rightly be thunderstruck at this glaring omission.
The answer to this riddle lies in one of the items listed in the
Report's Bibliography: Triggs, S. (1999) Sentencing
in New Zealand: A statistical analysis. In the Executive Summary,
Triggs states:
The results of the multivariate modelling indicate that females
are more likely than males to receive community service, supervision,
community programme or no sentence. On the other hand, females are
less likely to receive a prison sentence, periodic detention or
a monetary penalty. Gender is one of the most significant variables
influencing the probability of receiving a monetary penalty or a
community service sentence.
In the body of the work, Triggs states:
Gender 'is not in and of itself a justification for discriminating
between offenders' (Hall 1998, page B173-4). Yet, the results of
the multivariate modelling show that females are more likely than
males to receive community service, community programme or no sentence
and less likely to receive a prison sentence, periodic detention
or a monetary penalty. Thus, gender differences in sentencing persist
even after taking account of differences in the type and seriousness
of the offence committed (e.g. the average seriousness of offences
committed by women is lower than for men) and in the extent of previous
offending (e.g. women have fewer previous convictions on average;
section 3.1). Indeed, gender is the amongst the most significant
variables influencing the probability of receiving a community service
sentence or a monetary penalty.
Triggs does not give a definite reason for this discrimination,
and does not even raise the possibility of bias. This is not surprising,
since the Public Service lives and breathes Feminism, according to
which ideology gender discrimination only exists against women.
So I am led to ask again why Morrison did not recall this aspect
of Triggs' findings and discuss gender bias in the criminal justice
system – at least in the introduction. However, that is only
a rhetorical question, since we both know what the answer is: as I
have already stated, the Ministry of Justice is female-dominated,
the Public Service lives and breathes Feminism, and Morrison's report
is clearly politically-driven, and is not "research" in
the sense of an open-minded inquiry.
So I am writing to ask whether you consider that Morrison's Report
breaches the following aspects of the State
Services' Standards of Integrity & Conduct:
-
The need to treat everyone fairly;
-
The need to be professional;
-
The need to strive to make a difference to the well-being of
all New Zealand's people – not to oppress men and make a negative
difference to their well-being;
-
The need to maintain political neutrality;
-
The need to carry out functions unaffected by personal beliefs;
-
The need to provide unbiased advice;
-
The need to act objectively; and
-
The need to be honest.
In my view, Morrison's Report clearly breaches
all those aspects – as would you be doing, if you were not to
take appropriate action in respect of those breaches.
|
