Fears about crime, mostly related to ram-raids rather than offending prevalent throughout the country, such as domestic violence, have been ramped up by political parties keen to look tough by vowing to send more people to prison.
But amid this, where is the discussion about our prisons and how well they might be serving the population now?
There has been little political response to the damning report from Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier earlier this year about the poor management of our prisons and the lip service paid to requests for improvement.
In this neck of the woods, we are not hearing our politicians making pronouncements about the concerns this newspaper has been covering in recent years; the Otago Corrections Facility’s shift from a low to medium- security jail to a high-security one.
The jail is now the only one in the South Island equipped to hold high-security sentenced prisoners.
As we reported in February, its capacity has recently been expanded by 102 beds, 87 of them for high-security prisoners.
We doubt that was the outcome the community expected when the prison opened in 2007.
The establishment of a prison anywhere is always contentious, and there was heated debate in the Clutha district about the advantages and disadvantages of having the jail near Milton.
Some expected a boost to the economy of the area from contracts from the building, along with the work created from the facility, and people moving into the district to work there.
Others were concerned crime would increase and negative social issues would become prevalent as prisoners’ families moved in and prisoners were released into the community.
Whether the hopes or fears of those on either side of the argument have been fully realised is debatable.
But more recently, what has not been openly canvassed with the community, or indeed those concerned about prisoners’ wellbeing, is the possible impact of increasing the proportion of high-security prisoners.
According to its website, it has the capacity for training a total of 36 men in carpentry, engineering, and hospitality.
It also has the capacity to offer employment to a total of 136 men in a variety of endeavours including farming and grounds maintenance.
However, that capacity may not always be reached because of short staffing.
Will staffing of these valuable programmes become more difficult if the perception of the prison as a dangerous place to work increases?
The Corrections Association has been upfront about its concerns the prison has moved away from its original focus as a low-security campus-style facility and what they called, perhaps with some degree of poetic licence, ‘‘a green and pleasant land’’ being replaced by concrete and metalwork.
Nobody should expect prisoners to be held in awful out-moded buildings, and the closure of old units in Canterbury was inevitable.
But shipping all South Island high-security sentenced prisoners to the Milburn jail highlights a paucity in proper long-term prison planning.
Unsurprisingly, both major political parties are silent about the role they might have played in that.
As well as importing more high-security inmates, 55 low-security prisoners have been transferred to Rolleston prison and 24 more are expected to make the move.
Concerns have rightly been raised by the association about the impact of sending people away from their support networks and the likelihood this will increase aggression.
This applies to both those being sent north and those coming south.
We wonder how these changes in the Milburn inmate mix fit with what Judge Boshier describes as Corrections’ responsibility to assist those in its care, so when they walk out of the prison gates, they are ready and able to rejoin society and make valuable contributions.
There must be a better way.
