MAORI OFFENDING – A VIEW FROM WITHIN

Tu Tangata, Issue 3, 1 November 1981, Page 15

MAORI OFFENDING - A VIEW FROM WITHIN

HE RERENGA KORERO/Social Comment

Maori youth are consistently placed at a disadvantage in their contact with the criminal justice system. Notwithstanding fairly widespread reservations about the official data, the pattern over many years strongly suggests a systematic disadvantage for Maori. This does not necessarily mean wholesale prejudice on the part of law enforcement and the judiciary, but that something is operating in community relations as reflected in high arrest, charges, convictions and over-representation in prisons.

Maori criminal offending is published in extracts such as the following:

“At 31 March 1980, 13% of the population aged 17 and under were Maoris. Forty-nine per cent (49%) of all Children & Young Persons Court appearances were Maori.” (Source: Social Welfare Department). The inference is, of course, that Maoris individually are coming before the Childrens Court out of all proportion to their numbers in the total New Zealand population. In fact, the comparison is quite wrong.

The “13% of the population” refers to those people who saw themselves as Maoris and counted themselves as such once only on the night of official Census. The “49% of Children & Young Persons Court appearances” refers to how the official policies processed individuals and identified them as they appear in the system. It is the appearance that is counted and added up at the end of the year. The same person is counted each time he or she appears in Court.

This is like a farmer trying to judge the extent of mastitis infestation in his herd by adding the same infected cows to the total each time they appear for milking. It makes more sense to count once only those infected and get a total of individuals in the herd. If he keeps counting appearances he will eventually get more appearing than there are cows infected.

Official statistics on criminal offending don’t count individuals. They count only charges or offences. We simply don’t know how many Maoris (or for that matter, any other ethnic group), are in the total

group of persistent or first-time offenders. Incredible, but true. One also wonders why the individual is ignored. Could it be that the Courts process only charges and offences at the cost of individuals?

It is entirely probably that only a relatively small group of Maoris are responsible for offending out of all proportion to their numbers.

DISADVANTAGED

There is a strong field of opinion that criminal offending, especially juvenile offending, is predominantly a lower socio-economic class activity. The connection between that and the relatively high proportion of the Maori population being young and from the lower wage earning homes is easy to make.

The lack of money to pay for legal services is undoubtedly having a big influence on the end result of offences being brought before the Courts. Fairly well educated people with money and with the “right” attitudes to others of like disposition, have a systematic advantage in the legal process. They are well reinforced through their social institutions, so more attuned to the game. They are also much more aware of their rights and the power of money to ensure that those rights are exercised. Their offending tends to be private and hidden. Maori offending is for public record.

The Maori, because of his/her social and cultural remoteness from the

world of judiciary, experience the shadow rather than the substance of equality before the law. Money may not be everything, though it counts for an awful lot in getting justice.

There is nothing called “law” which you can buy from a shop. We can’t go to a grocer and buy lOlbs of law, put it in our basket and take it home. If the law is “broken”, we can’t see the pieces of “broken law” like those of a cup or plate. We only know about the law. It is in the mind. How it gets there is something else again. We pay people for our ignorance of law. Some people lawyers, policemen, and policewomen, traffic officers, the Judges and Court people are in a pretty privileged position. They know far more about the “law” and what it is all about than others. They know the tough hide of the charges and the soft under-belly of technicalities which work in proving or disproving those charges.

IGNORANCE NO EXCUSE

Here again we have another systematic disadvantage for Maori in the legal process. The old saying that, “ignorance of the law is no excuse” is pretty well much of a fairy tale. There is such a huge amount of law waiting around to be broken and so many eager forces ready to pounce, that the typical citizen can hardly spend a day without breaking one sort of law or another.

Knowledge is a definite advantage. Either knowledge of the requirements of laws or knowledge about what to do when things go wrong. The Maori very often, lacks both advantages. Such disadvantages can be very costly in terms of peace of mind and freedom of action. However, it is not simply a matter of knowing. It is a matter of understanding. Society expects to spend millions of dollars on teaching lawyers, judges, law enforcement officials and others working the legal system, so that they will not be “ignorant before the law” It enhances the mysticism of the wig and gown, the polished rituals and the intonations of those lesser mortals in the dock.

In comparison with such learned gentry, the Maori is technically unfit to plead. He/she simply does not comprehend the scene being en-

acted before him/her. Legal rights and obligations are fruits of the system gone bad by ignorance and mishandling along the way. The charge, as a legal abstraction of his/her behaviour, often bears no resemblance to the mind-picture of the events in real life. The language is foreign officialese, spoken in ritualised English to tantalise the intellectual vanity of officialdom. Communication between the Maori defendant and law enforcement, or the legal profession or members of the judiciary is in similar manner.

It is trite to claim that because the Maori is English speaking, that he/she should know what is being talked about in Court or what is being said during Police interrogation. It is unusual for the Maori defendant to ask for the meaning of concepts used in the Courts. A sentence or word is repeated on request but rarely does the Maori defendant ask for the meaning of the words used, to be explained. For instance, what is the real meaning of the plea of “not guilty”? Does it mean did it, but you prove it”. There may be a whole prison sentence between the two.

MACHO MAN

Rather than have his/her ignorance displayed in public, the Maori will pretend to know, to understand and to agree. He/she will, out of sheer ignorance of the implications of the situation, agree with what is being said in an effort to get the whole business over and done with. In the interrogation situation, the young Maori is apt to act with incredibly foolish bravado in the best macho style, without regard to the ramifications of his statements or the seriousness of his boasts. He is then trapped by his own pride because he fatalistically plays out his hand. Tragically play-acting a toughness all the way to Court or prison. A shrewd and unscrupulous interrogator can easily capitalise on such foolishness. It doesn’t make for justice, but then heavy case loads aren’t concerned with justice only clearance of cases.

The conflict between Maori customary practice in response to authority figures and the official perception of fairness in law, is illustrated in the time-honoured caution administered under the Judges Rules. The police manual is clear, unequivocal and without any con-

fusion about the reason or intent in the giving of the caution. Indeed, many Police personnel are meticulous in its presentation, thus:

“Do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge. You are not obliged to say anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in

evidence.”

The statement itself, calls for fairly sophisticated reasoning to fully comprehend. Imagine how much more so, on first hearing it, while under stress of interrogation or frustration from being unable to communicate or comprehend properly what the whole situation is about.

First of all the authority figure (police officer) tells him he is charged with an offence. Then asks him if he wants to say anything. Then carries on to say that the’re is no obligation to say anything but if he wants to he can but if he does, someone will write down what he says and do something with it. The police officer may or may not ask more questions after giving the caution.

If questioning continues, there is a very real risk that the Maori will agree with what is being alleged simply for the sake of agreeing. The conditioning from Maori customary practice is extremely powerful in directing the person to answer questions asked by authority figures. Very often replies will be what he/she thinks the questioner wants to hear. Indeed, the uninitiated in Maori customary practice run serious risks in misinterpreting behaviour and responses when interviewing Maoris. If you don’t expect an answer, then why ask?

The other reaction is to psychologically withdraw entirely from the situation. To outsiders this could appear as sullen and insolent silence. In fact, the surface calm may hide inner turmoil from a feeling of hopeless frustration and helplessness in the face of seemingly impenetrable officialdom. By the time he/she appears in Court, the insidious workings of a fatalistic approach to life has pretty well taken over.

ACROSS THE LINES

A much more destructive influence is the way Maori youth and law enforcement authorities perceive each other. As members of the wider community, both the police and traffic officer (lawyers and

judiciary too) bring their own life experiences and prejudices with them to the job. How well they can reconcile the ideals of their job with their own views of the world is a matter of individual conscience. How well they are trained to recognise their own stereotyped views of ethnic minorities is a matter of professional ethics and public conscience. When negative perceptions are displayed by inferential reporting in the mass media by quoting “statistics” as discussed earlier, and through showing sensational films of police-youth violence, then it becomes a matter for public concern.

Maori youth learn about police and traffic officers in like manner. Not only is the image of hostile authority nurtured in peer group loyalties but also fostered through television stereotypes of “cops and youth” and sensational photographs in newspapers. Their perceptions of police and traffic officers are supported also by their experiences with a small proportion of law enforcement personnel. One incident can spread like a pox and destroy all the good work and trust that has been built up between young people and the law in their community.

HARASSMENT

Thus we have Maori youths and even adults bitterly upset at being hassled by law enforcement people through random name and address checks on the street or by having to turn out their pockets or being quizzed and disbelieved when carrying an expensive radio-cassette player in public or being told to “move on” on a semi-deserted footpath or being “jostled” in a pub inspection and in innumerable other demeaning encounters with authority. For traffic relations, the bitterest complaints come from the young whose cars have been stopped and searched and beer tipped down the drain. And being repeatedly stopped for trivial “offences” written out in “warnings”. Eventually the scene becomes ugly and often verbally or physically violent. It does not matter much whether the car is old or new. If old, the vehicle is repeatedly stopped for “mechanical” checks. If new, then continual checks and thinly disguised accusations of car conversion, followed by a barrage of questions and proof as to ownership, insurance, car salesman, what sort of job and amount of money and so

on. The right to move with freedom in society is seriously eroded. Police and traffic officers also have their own personal problems with being hassled by dedicated “cop-baiters”. Being provoked unmercifully by resentful youths intent on trouble. Having to face a barrage of abuse from the anonimity of a crowd. Having to deal with the results of a crime on the victim. Having to weave a way to the truth through a field of lies, half-truths, evasions and all the trickery for deceit that human imagination can bestow on the “innocence” of youth. Thus the acts of a few are visited on the many. It is a fact that most of the clients of law enforcement authorities are under the age of 30 years, are mainly non professional workers, poorly educated and tend to be aggressive in reacting to stressful situations. PAYING THE PRICE Maori youth make up a large proportion of this population. Social contact between law enforcement and Maori youth is inevitable be-

cause both sides live and work in close proximity to each other. Copbaiting, confrontation by the young Maori to “save face” through peer group pressure, provocation motivated by the need to “even-the-score” and sheer mischief makes the Maori far from entirely blameless in hostile police, traffic officer/Maori youth relations. The end result is that the young Maori pays the price. The tragedy is that the cycle of conflict goes on and on. Each side being reinforced by its own experiences and perceptions of the other. False though the perception of hate may be, it is real in its consequences to the holders. Without appearing to make excuses for Maori youth, the greater responsibility for changing this situation must be with law enforcement authorities. Their training and selection procedures should equip the law enforcement officer with the understanding of Maori youth and the maturity to cope with situations before conflict arises. The greater maturity should accept the greater responsibility even in

protecting others from themselves. SEARCH AND RESCUE All these things add up to a systematic disadvantage for Maori youth in the criminal justice law enforcement system. At nearly every avenue of contact with the system, Maori youth are not able to cope with the unwritten rules and recognise the cues dictating how one should behave to gain most legal advantage from the system. It is a world of strange things. Ideas quite alien to their thinking. Outside their comprehension of the reality of their situation. Ignorant of the ramifications of the charges and penalties they face. They react with the bravado of their peers. They turn off the advice of their elders, switch on the authority of the Courts. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in search and rescue for those lost in the bush and mountains. How well do we rescue those lost in the inbetween world of the lawless and the alienated? Can we afford to? Can we afford not to?

TOM WHITTAKER Research Officer Maori Affairs