I am not a criminologist or organisational sociologist, so I cannot offer a data-driven opinion on the effectiveness of military-syle so-called ‘boot camps” when it comes to rehabilitating juvenile delinquents and youth offenders. They are popular in the US and other cultures where a premium is placed on using institutionalised discipline and punishment in order to enforce compliance with social norms, even at an early age (needless to say, Michel Foucault has much to say on this subject-he has a book on the subject–so I shall refer readers to his work). Now they have been resurrected in NZ by the ruling coalition, with the first ten inmates–all considered to be “serious youth offenders” convicted of at least two major crimes–scheduled to begin their 12 month rehabilitation trial starting early next week. It will be interesting to see how that works out for them.
I must admit to being unfamiliar with the specifics of the program that is about to be trialed, so am happy to be educated about it. I should also note that the NZDF declined to participate in the program, so whatever it is modelled on may not reflect current NZDF “boot camp” practices. Perhaps it is modeled on foreign juvenile delinquent “boot camp” programs and/or staffed by ex-NZDF or NZ police or a private security company that has expertise in such matters. Again, I am all ears on the who/what/how of the project (since it is just a trial according to the government). But for the moment and whatever the relative merits, I find the whole concept of using boot camps as models for rehabilitating miscreants somewhat perplexing.
Allow me to explain why.
“Boot camp” is a euphemism for military basic training. In basic training, which lasts approximately six weeks in most countries, followed by assignment to other military units, civilian recruits are isolated from civil society and psychologically “broken down” in order to install in them new military values and technical skills. The emphasis is reducing the individual’s notion of “self” and subordinating it to the notion of “service” via the harsh inculcation of rote obedience to authority, reflexive adherence to orders and submission of the ego to the collective good of a larger whole that is united by its common training in the skills of armed combat, i.e., the military unit. The purpose of this is to turn former civilians, with all of their notions of individuality, community and the fluid relationship between them, into soldiers, that is, a cohesive group of anonymous members of a larger hierarchical entity (the armed forces) dedicated via specialised training and political purpose to destroying designated enemies of the State.
Put bluntly, boot camps turn civilian recruits into sociopathic killing machines aimed at State-designated enemies in which their psychological reorientation and education in the techniques and instruments of organised murder serve the interests of the State and the society from which they came and which the State purports to defend. Loyalty is to the in-group above all else (hence the saying that soldiers fight for each other and have “espirit d’corps”), and their collective murderous intent is fixated on designated ‘others” by the powers that be, as expressed by the military chain of command.
One might say that if anything basic training boot camps are exercises in learning the ultimate form of mass anti-social behaviour (collective violence), but with organised features and specific targets. They are anything but rehabilitative in orientation.They simply replace the “looseness” of civilian life with the discipline and technical skills required to kill and be killed in battle.
In fact, when soldiers near the end of the service careers they are put through re-orientation programs designed to prepare them for the return to civilian life. These involve de-programming soldiers of most of what was learned in basic training boot camps and re-programming them with a more social-oriented ethos conducive to their better reintegration into civil society. In other words, they are taught to unlearn the sociopathic traits learned in boot camps in order to become contributing members of society.
It therefore strikes me as odd that anyone would think that it is a good idea to give youth offenders boot camp-style training. It seems that–not to be frivolous about the issue–it would only make them better (more disciplined, organised and prepared) criminals down the road. On the other hand, if the emphasis is on the non-sociopathic aspects of basic training–service to a higher good, sense of shared community, adherence to universal norms and values, subsuming of self to society, etc.–then perhaps the “tough love” approach might work, especially if it emphasises the re-integration aspects of military end of service separation programs.
But if the emphasis is on scary drill sergeants barking orders and enforcing physical compliance, 5AM wake-up calls and 8PM lights out rules, cold showers, detention mandates, forced schooling routines, hard physical exercise and endless drills and chores interrupted by short meal breaks, then it seems that is as much about punishment as it is about discipline and consequently not conducive to the individual’s comfortable transition into being a contributing member of the community (unless one believes that punishment itself is a form of rehabilitation. That appears to be the view of those responsible for the abuse in care atrocities recently detailed in a Royal Commission Report on the treatment of minors under state care in postwar NZ. Let’s just say that when it came to rehabilitation and social reintegration of the abused children, the results were not positive, so the irony of introducing the boot camp scheme shortly after the Royal Commission’s Report should not be lost on anyone).
In any event, the emphasis on military basic training as a model for young criminal rehabilitation seems suspect given the nature of military basic training. Perhaps the emphasis should be on offering a strong hand that helps and a firm shoulder on which to lean rather than on using the boot.
On this one I have to disagree with you on the military recruit training, as practised in New Zealand at least. The process and the purpose is not as you describe it and hasn’t been for decades. (And yes, of course some of your individual examples can occur, but the overall thrust just is not like that.
Thanks Jim,
So how does the NZDF work its basic training? They do not strike me as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, so there must be some toughness to the course. Again, I am happy to be educated on NZDF basic training as well as the details of this boot camp project.
You hit the nail on its head, Pablo:
“Perhaps the emphasis should be on offering a strong hand that helps and a firm shoulder on which to lean rather than on using the boot.”
NZDF’s initial military training is about induction, like all militaries, into the culture (written and unwritten rules) of the organisation. Each service is different but parts are identical and run together (E.g. joint initial officer training). The approach to that training has changed over many years. There are things depicted in “full Metal jacket” and the like, that just don’t hold anymore. For instance, the use of exercise as a remediation is used a lot more carefully than in the past, overseen by PT’s who themselves sit under health services rather than under warfare (infantry/seamen/force protection services). The reason for this is that physical remediation isn’t meant to harm people or be punishment, it’s meant to change their behaviour. The purpose of initial training (bootcamp) is to induct people into the culture and build a platform for their success in a culture that can be hard, because the organisation’s strategic purpose is to project power (though I’m sure a military strategist will dispute that). In a sense the historical depiction of initial military training gives it a bad name, and modern military training isn’t that bad otherwise a lot less people would choose it. Some good examples to look at are initial US Navy Seals training (direct entry is possible)- these are high performing athletes who they are trying to build skills in and the old-school approach of trying to break people just isn’t used anymore- barrier tests still exist but even they are being used less. That said, there are still services where their reputation is notoriously punishing, like the US Marines.
Sitting more comfortably describing bootcamps, it really comes down to what you’re comparing them with. They’re both more effective and less expensive when compared with traditional custodial sentences in the US. But they don’t typically reduce recidivism. Young people often aren’t managed in usual custodial settings, so the comparison may be more or less in NZ. The group being described by the minister appear to be coming from custodial sentences.
Systematic reviews point to it being in the detail of what cohort you are managing, the comparative intervention and how they are implemented. It’s particularly important what therapeutic approach is both included in the “bootcamp” and follow-up. Presumably “therapy” is seen as “soft” on crime and so we aren’t hearing this discussed, even though it’s the most important part. My questions with each of these young people would be whether they’ve had a diagnostic assessment for associated health conditions- for instance, we know that ADHD is associated with impulsiveness in males and we know it can be treated well and cheaply. I would want to know that they’ve all been given that opportunity, that they’re then given the opportunity for CBT, coaching and talk therapy, followed by remedial education for any schooling they’ve missed. Each of these are well evidenced interventions.
Whoever runs these programs, they also need appropriate training and support. There’s a reason NZDF don’t typically take minors anymore, because young people aren’t universally mature enough to undergo initial training and it’s not fair to put highly trained military personnel in the situation of using their skills on a group that they weren’t trained to deal with. With initial recruits, the training staff know that these people will become their peers (opposite numbers, oppo’s, mates etc.) and that the initial training process is in their best interest to survive in the military environment. They can’t say that about kids who have typically come from poor environments, been survivors of abuse and whom have no vested interest in their success on course (unlike military recruits).
Links to the three most recent systematic reviews below:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2005.6
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047235210001315
https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Effectiveness_of_Male_Juvenile_Boot_Camp.html?id=1jI1yQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y
Having been a recruit and later a trainer I can assure readers that “sociopathic killing machines” do not emerge from NZ basic training. The author starts by saying he knows little about the topic and I can only agree with him. Jim Rolfe is correct.
Thanks to Jim and Max for putting reality into the poorly informed lead article. The assertions that are offered by the writer are simply wrong. Simple research into NZ military history and current practice would have revealed that.
John,
How do you, Max and Jim know that the boot camps are modeled on NZ basic training? DR has made a very good comment that speaks to the varieties of boot camp training (while focusing on the NZ experience), so barring further information on the trial program and unless you have the details to confirm your opinion, perhaps it would be best to not make assumptions about what it is based on. As I said in the post, I welcome concrete information about the trial program whatever its origins.
You miss the point. I actually believe that the so called boot camps are a thoroughly bad things that are doomed to failure.
My comments relate to a number of rather silly statements such as:
‘Put bluntly, boot camps turn civilian recruits into sociopathic killing machines aimed at State-designated enemies in which their psychological reorientation and education in the techniques and instruments of organised murder serve the interests of the State and the society from which they came and which the State purports to defend”
and
‘These involve de-programming soldiers of most of what was learned in basic training boot camps and re-programming them with a more social-oriented ethos conducive to their better reintegration into civil society”
However there is an upside – the chaps at the bowling club can now put things down to the fact that I was absent from the de-programming programme when I left the service.
John,
Have it your way, based on what appears to be no knowledge of the many types of boot camps that exist around the world, as well as military exit programs. You assume that these trial “academies” will be based on NZDF basic training and perhaps they are even though the NZDF declined to have anything to do with them. My comments refer to the basic intent of boot camps–turning civilians into soldiers prepared for battle–and why emphasis on the “military” aspect of the “military-style” may not be a good idea. I put plenty of caveats into the post but you read what you want to read. Perhaps less time spent at the pub will sharpen your analytic skills. This concludes the conversation.
The minister in charge, Karen Chhour, seems to embody the mantra that “hurt people hurt people”.