If hospitals cure...
There's been much comment, understandably, following the blog post from Frances Crook setting out how the new privileges regime in prisons means that the sending in of books, or indeed, almost anything other than a letter or a bought as opposed to homemade card has been banned.
This also covers magazines, and in my view, most outrageously, clothes. At the discretion of the governor, as the prison service instructions on incentives and earned privileges set out (DOC), prisoners may be allowed to receive a "one-off clothing parcel" after conviction. Otherwise, that's that. Unless they're one of the few lucky enough to get a job in the prison and earn money to buy themselves some extra apparel, they'll be stuck wearing prison issue clothes, most likely worn by dozens of inmates before them. Just how draconian these new restrictions are is made clear by the exception for unconvicted prisoners, who must be allowed to have "sufficient clean clothing sent into them from outside" (page 45). In other words, those convicted may be stuck wearing the same, dirty clothes for much of their time inside. As one of the conditions for getting on to even the standard level of privileges is to have "due regard for personal hygiene and health (including appearance, neatness and suitability of clothing)", this seems to have been designed specifically to make life as miserable as possible.
Suitably excised by all the liberal do-gooders demanding that prisoners have the right to read books when most have no intention of doing so, Chris Grayling has duly responded. Why, the idea prisoners cannot have books is a nonsense! They are allowed to have up to 12 in their cell at one time, so long that is as they brought them in to start with, as trips to the prison library are infrequent and there's no guarantee they'll have something the inmate will want to read. Besides, they can also buy books with the money they earn from their job while detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Those with a job are guaranteed the princely sum of at least £4.00 per week, meaning that if they don't buy anything else they can afford a paperback every two weeks. That is if the paperback is £5.99, as those with a television set in their cell have to pay £1.00 a week rent for that privilege. Those who don't have a job are guaranteed at least £2.50 a week, which with the £1 taken off for TV rent leaves them with £1.50 to spend as they please. They're also not allowed to watch the TV when they could be working, even if there aren't any jobs or programmes for them to attend. Grayling also says prisoners were never allowed unlimited parcels, which they certainly weren't. To completely deny them anything other than letters and cards sent by friends or relatives however is a new and drastic change.
The reasoning behind all this is supposedly to decrease reoffending. For years we heard of how "cushy" prisons had become, with even certain Sky channels allowed in private sector prisons. Stop allowing inmates to lounge around watching daytime TV, get them either working or learning, and soon the astronomical recidivism rate will come down. Except the reality is that even before the cuts made to the prison system there weren't enough jobs to go round, nor can every minute be spent either on specific programmes or in education (spot checks found an average of 25% of a prison's population locked up during the day). Those not doing either are banged up, and deprived of TV or reading material the obvious result is boredom. Boredom leading to depression, or alternatively, aggression. How this is meant to reduce reoffending is not explained, nor does it seem there is any actual evidence suggesting a stricter privileges regime could help. The PSI certainly doesn't suggest this is an attempt to reduce reoffending; the desired outcome section only sets out that "prisoners will engage with their rehabilitation". Engaging is meaningless if their circumstances are much the same on release, which for most they will be.
Why then do it, when the risk surely is that even if not directly, the new restrictions might lead to the opposite of what is intended, even to riots? The answer that it appeals to both the tabloids and to those who believe, more than reasonably, that prison is meant to be harsh and unpleasant doesn't really cover it. That hardly anyone apart from those affected and their relatives knew is testament to the tiny impact it would have on the overall impression of the government, Grayling, or the prison system.
Instead, it's hard to shake the impression that Grayling gave the OK to such changes precisely because he could. As with Iain Duncan Smith and his unshakeable belief that he is right and all of his critics are wrong or far worse, Grayling gives the impression of a man who always knows best. We don't need any trials of probation privatisation, it just needs to be done. Prisoners have wronged society, therefore allowing them new, clean underwear apart from that bought with their own money is a luxury they have forfeited. Depriving someone who enjoyed reading outside with the means to keep up their habit is a punishment. That some will have read to improve their literacy skills is irrelevant. Posing as tough rarely costs votes, as long as that stance doesn't lead to prisoners on roofs. And let's hope for Grayling's sake that doesn't happen.
This also covers magazines, and in my view, most outrageously, clothes. At the discretion of the governor, as the prison service instructions on incentives and earned privileges set out (DOC), prisoners may be allowed to receive a "one-off clothing parcel" after conviction. Otherwise, that's that. Unless they're one of the few lucky enough to get a job in the prison and earn money to buy themselves some extra apparel, they'll be stuck wearing prison issue clothes, most likely worn by dozens of inmates before them. Just how draconian these new restrictions are is made clear by the exception for unconvicted prisoners, who must be allowed to have "sufficient clean clothing sent into them from outside" (page 45). In other words, those convicted may be stuck wearing the same, dirty clothes for much of their time inside. As one of the conditions for getting on to even the standard level of privileges is to have "due regard for personal hygiene and health (including appearance, neatness and suitability of clothing)", this seems to have been designed specifically to make life as miserable as possible.
Suitably excised by all the liberal do-gooders demanding that prisoners have the right to read books when most have no intention of doing so, Chris Grayling has duly responded. Why, the idea prisoners cannot have books is a nonsense! They are allowed to have up to 12 in their cell at one time, so long that is as they brought them in to start with, as trips to the prison library are infrequent and there's no guarantee they'll have something the inmate will want to read. Besides, they can also buy books with the money they earn from their job while detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Those with a job are guaranteed the princely sum of at least £4.00 per week, meaning that if they don't buy anything else they can afford a paperback every two weeks. That is if the paperback is £5.99, as those with a television set in their cell have to pay £1.00 a week rent for that privilege. Those who don't have a job are guaranteed at least £2.50 a week, which with the £1 taken off for TV rent leaves them with £1.50 to spend as they please. They're also not allowed to watch the TV when they could be working, even if there aren't any jobs or programmes for them to attend. Grayling also says prisoners were never allowed unlimited parcels, which they certainly weren't. To completely deny them anything other than letters and cards sent by friends or relatives however is a new and drastic change.
The reasoning behind all this is supposedly to decrease reoffending. For years we heard of how "cushy" prisons had become, with even certain Sky channels allowed in private sector prisons. Stop allowing inmates to lounge around watching daytime TV, get them either working or learning, and soon the astronomical recidivism rate will come down. Except the reality is that even before the cuts made to the prison system there weren't enough jobs to go round, nor can every minute be spent either on specific programmes or in education (spot checks found an average of 25% of a prison's population locked up during the day). Those not doing either are banged up, and deprived of TV or reading material the obvious result is boredom. Boredom leading to depression, or alternatively, aggression. How this is meant to reduce reoffending is not explained, nor does it seem there is any actual evidence suggesting a stricter privileges regime could help. The PSI certainly doesn't suggest this is an attempt to reduce reoffending; the desired outcome section only sets out that "prisoners will engage with their rehabilitation". Engaging is meaningless if their circumstances are much the same on release, which for most they will be.
Why then do it, when the risk surely is that even if not directly, the new restrictions might lead to the opposite of what is intended, even to riots? The answer that it appeals to both the tabloids and to those who believe, more than reasonably, that prison is meant to be harsh and unpleasant doesn't really cover it. That hardly anyone apart from those affected and their relatives knew is testament to the tiny impact it would have on the overall impression of the government, Grayling, or the prison system.
Instead, it's hard to shake the impression that Grayling gave the OK to such changes precisely because he could. As with Iain Duncan Smith and his unshakeable belief that he is right and all of his critics are wrong or far worse, Grayling gives the impression of a man who always knows best. We don't need any trials of probation privatisation, it just needs to be done. Prisoners have wronged society, therefore allowing them new, clean underwear apart from that bought with their own money is a luxury they have forfeited. Depriving someone who enjoyed reading outside with the means to keep up their habit is a punishment. That some will have read to improve their literacy skills is irrelevant. Posing as tough rarely costs votes, as long as that stance doesn't lead to prisoners on roofs. And let's hope for Grayling's sake that doesn't happen.
Labels: Chris Grayling, Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition, crime, crime policies, politics, prison reform, prisons
| Permalink
Why stop there? You could have them in leg-irons, or even, as in The Beggar's Opera, having to pay to get the best leg-irons. I dare say the tabloids would be delighted.
Posted by
Tode |
Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:51:00 pm
Post a Comment