Constructing and Reconstructing Criminality In
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/ Research Commons at the University of Waikato Copyright Statement: The digital copy of this thesis is protected by the Copyright Act 1994 (New Zealand). The thesis may be consulted by you, provided you comply with the provisions of the Act and the following conditions of use: Any use you make of these documents or images must be for research or private study purposes only, and you may not make them available to any other person. Authors control the copyright of their thesis. You will recognise the author’s right to be identified as the author of the thesis, and due acknowledgement will be made to the author where appropriate. You will obtain the author’s permission before publishing any material from the thesis. Constructing and Reconstructing Criminality in Aotearoa/New Zealand: Dominant Media Discourses on Crime and Criminality and their Impact on Offenders’ Identities and Rehabilitation Efforts A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Management Studies at The University of Waikato by MURRAY RICHES 2014 Abstract This study investigates the dominant media discourses and ideologies surrounding crime and criminality in Aotearoa/New Zealand, how such discourses are constructed and legitimised by media reporting of crime, and the implications of these discourses for deemed offenders. The study firstly involves a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of ‘mainstream’ media reports relating to crime and criminality in Aotearoa/New Zealand over a 12-month period – paying particular attention to the reporting evident in two major newspaper outlets. This analysis reveals two key themes: the construction of criminal offenders as undeserving criminalised others – particularly through the use of truth-claims about criminality and the simplification of offenders’ identities – and the legitimisation of retributive, tough-on-crime, responses to offending. The analysis of media discourses is augmented by an ethnographic study of an offender rehabilitation programme. This investigation is used to explore how dominant discourses and ideologies on crime and criminality contribute to the construction of offenders’ self-identities, the impact of such identity construction on their patterns of offending and rehabilitation, as well as the ways in which these discourses are contested (or reinforced) by those deemed ‘offenders’. This follow-up ethnographic case study involves participant observation, focus groups and interviews with participants of the Good Lives Model offender rehabilitation programme at Anglican Action in Hamilton over a 12-month period. The participants of this programme are men transitioning back into the community after serving significant prison sentences. i The ethnographic investigation reveals the ways the otherising discourses exposed in the CDA are present for, and effect, the men as they make the challenging journey out of prison, particularly in their experiences of discrimination and otherisation when seeking to engage with, and transition back into, the wider community. This exploration also reveals a nuanced negotiation of identity and power, whereby the men both draw on and challenge the dominant discourses at different times in the process of negotiating an identity position and accessing agency within a marginalising discursive framework. Thus, the discourse analysis and the ethnographic study together provide rich insights into the pervasive impacts of dominant public constructions of criminality on offenders’ sense of identity and on their attempts to reintegrate with society. The study concludes by arguing that the CDA and ethnographic investigation together emphasise the need to challenge the destructive nature of the dominant discourses and cultivate a more inclusive and reasoned discursive framework for exploring ideas around crime and criminality in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The thesis argues that one way to counter the ‘wilful blindness’ exemplified in media and public discourses, is through the use of story for it is through listening and seeking to know the other that we can begin to have our assumptions challenged. It is important to note that this thesis in no way endorses any criminal offending nor does it seek to minimise the pain and suffering of any victims of crime. Rather, it argues that such a dualistic understanding of crime, and the relationship between victims and offenders, only inhibits our ability to look at the issues surrounding crime and criminality with clarity. ii Acknowledgements There are many people to whom I am extremely grateful for the support and inspiration they have offered me over the duration of this project. First, and most significantly, I wish to acknowledge the many men I have had the immense privilege of walking alongside as they make the significant, and extremely challenging, step out of prison and back into the community. Over the duration of this project I have been both inspired and overwhelmed by the generous, kind, and caring ways I have been welcomed and included into their community. I also wish to acknowledge the staff at Anglican Action; particularly Karen Morrison-Hume, who has supported this project from the outset; Rosemary Brown, who so freely shared her wisdom and experience as the GLM programme developer and facilitator; and Derek, Mark, Jackie, Gabor, Mātua David, and Hemi, who, as ‘key workers’ alongside the men, have been a significant source of insight and experience. The work they do in supporting the men is transformative. Significant thanks must also go to my thesis supervisor, Prof. Debashish Munshi. Debashish has stuck beside me as I ventured into what has been, for me, a massive project in largely unknown territory, and has continued to guide and support me with a level of patience beyond reasonable expectations. Thanks also to Prof. Shiv Ganesh, for his encouragement and guidance. Thanks to my parents, for always opening up their home, and hearts, to the ‘other’, and in the process opening my eyes to a world beyond the intersections of my own privilege. And finally, I want to acknowledge my friends and colleagues: Sam Taylor, Jacob Parsons, Sarah-Anne Riches, and Maree Aldridge, who have offered me tremendous support and inspiration on this journey. iii Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................... i Acknowledgements ............................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1 Reflexivity .................................................................................................... 3 Me and the ‘Justice’ System ............................................................ 4 2. Literature Review ............................................................................................... 7 Crime and Punishment: A Failing Response to Crime ................................ 7 The Cost of Crime ............................................................................ 8 Does Imprisonment Reduce Crime? ................................................ 9 The Real Cost of Confinement ....................................................... 10 Mass Imprisonment ........................................................................ 11 ‘Crime and Punishment’ from a Communications Perspective ................. 12 Neo-Liberalism and the Discourse of ‘Victim Rights’ .................. 12 The Social Construction of Target Populations ............................. 14 Media and Crime – The Construction of Undeserving Others ...... 14 Counter-Discourses .................................................................................... 18 Gap in the Literature .................................................................................. 21 3. Research Methodology ..................................................................................... 23 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) ............................................................ 24 Media Analysis .............................................................................. 28 Limitations ..................................................................................... 30 Ethnographic Case Study ........................................................................... 31 Case Study ...................................................................................... 31 Ethnographic Participant Observation ........................................... 32 Method ........................................................................................... 34 Ethical Considerations ................................................................... 36 Limitations ..................................................................................... 37 4. Media Analysis ................................................................................................. 38 Otherisation ................................................................................................ 39 Identity as Criminal: Single Dimension Identities ......................... 39 ‘Criminals’ as different from ‘Us’ ................................................. 43 Stereotyping and the Unified Offender Identity............................. 48 Dehumanising