Search

In the context of on-going debates regarding sex work laws, in most jurisdictions forms of criminalisation continue to dominate. Despite decades of sex workers calling for the decriminalisation of sex work and collectively organising against repressive laws, decriminalisation remains uncommon. New Zealand was the first full country to decriminalise sex work with the passing of the Prostitution Reform Act in 2003, which aimed to improve occupational health and safety. Several empirical studies have documented positive impacts of this framework. However, despite this, neo-abolitionists persistently describe the New Zealand model as a failed approach. This article examines neo-abolitionist knowledge claims regarding the New Zealand model and in doing so unpacks the strategic stories told about this approach, considering the implications for sex work policy making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At-Risk Units (ARUs) are dedicated facilities established in New Zealand prisons to assist those considered to be ‘at risk’ of self-harm or suicide. Their remit is ostensibly care-based and rights-conscious, with authorities noting that ARUs preserve the ‘right to life’. Drawing upon research within two correctional sites, alongside analysis of recent documents from oversight bodies and courts, this article considers ARU operations. It is argued that, all too often, ARUs have undermined humane practices towards suicidal or ‘at-risk’ prisoners. Four problems are apparent: (1) ARUs are misused and overused in such a way that secure punishment, rather than care, is prioritized; (2) within a context of ‘lesser eligibility’, ARUs operationalize degrading conditions and treatments towards prisoners; (3) humane treatments are further diminished by a correctional approach to prioritize legal or bureaucratic compliance; and (4) authorities avoid institutional sanction for prisoner harms or deaths, particularly through an emphasis on personal responsibilization or blame. The end-result is that ARUs are regularly operationalized in ways that exacerbate risks and diminish rights for prisoners. A question remains about their fundamental use as an appropriate response to those who suffer mental health distress within penal environments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The New Zealand youth justice system emerged as a ‘new paradigm’ in the early 1990s. This model of reintegration, restorativeness, diversion and family empowerment has been highly influential worldwide. The New Zealand system has remained stable and non-punitive in the context of a volatile and punitive adult criminal justice system and the ‘punitive turn’ in the youth justice systems of similar jurisdictions. Significant reforms have been made through amending legislation in 2010. Here, three significant conceptual shifts underpinning the recent reforms are discussed. It is suggested that the New Zealand youth justice system is ‘playing catch-up’ both with the adult system, and with comparable jurisdictions. Nevertheless, those factors which allowed the youth justice system to remain non-punitive up to now may act to mitigate the potentially harsh effects of the legislative changes. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]