Skip to main content

Grayling's Fetish with prison uniforms and televisions.

The Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling,  has instituted a new regime in our prisons. Prisoners will have to 'earn' privileges. In the new regime they'll start off with very few 'perks' and work their way up. For the first two weeks male prisoners will wear uniforms. 

I always feel there is something rather fetishistic about Tory approaches to crime and punishment. Remember the "short, sharp shock" of the boot camp days? But this is rather more a pandering to public  perception,  and the need to be assured that prisoners are 'punished'.  It is not enough that they are deprived of their freedom; no we must be sure they are humiliated as much as possible. We must see them beg for mercy, pay for their crimes. Perhaps, no certainly, when they are in the prison yard they should not only have a uniform with spots on but also be in leg-irons. Their exercise should be pacing up and down like caged bears. 

I suspect there are a few, perhaps many, who would love to bring back the stocks and throw eggs and rotten vegetables at wrong-doers in the town square. I confess to thinking that would be good, but not very civilised. I also have no doubt there are a few 'floggers' too who yearn for a few public floggings.

 Grayling defends his changes by saying: "For too long the public has seen prisoners spending their days languishing in their cells watching TV, using illegal mobile phones to taunt their victims on Facebook or boasting about their supposedly easy life in prisons. This is not right and it cannot continue."

Personally I have never seen prisoners spending their time doing any of these things, although I am sure they do. It would be like watching paint dry spending days watching prisoners do such things. I really wonder how many people have spent such time. Clearly Mr Grayling does have such a past time. I suppose that is what justice secretaries are meant to do, watch prisoners languishing in jail. 

I asked my neighbour how many times she had seen prisoners watching TV. "What?" she responded incredulously. "What do you mean?" she continued, somewhat suspiciously, as if I had accused her of something rather dreadful. Anyway, the upshot is she hadn't seen any prisoner doing such a thing, ever, although she did confess to having seen prisoners watching TV on TV. 

So what did she think about it? I asked her. "Think about what?" She replied. Prisoners watching TV, I pressed on. "Oh, well I haven't really thought about it at all." She said. "Why are you asking?" Again rather suspiciously. She didn't know anyone in prison she went on to say, rather suspicious that I was 'accusing' her of doing so. "Anyway, Ray, I imagine they watch an awful lot of TV."  Why is that? I asked. "Well what else is there for them to do?" 

The new regime is all a bit of ill-thought through nonsense. But it is also dangerous nonsense. It is more likely than not to create boredom and frustration, increased tension and violence. It is plain stupidity. 








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The secret life of Giant Pandas

Giant pandas, Ailuropoda melanoleuca , have usually been regarded as solitary creatures, coming together only to mate; but recent studies have begun to reveal a secret social life for these enigmatic bears.  GPS tracking shows they cross each others path more often than previously thought, and spend time together.  What we don't know is what they are doing when together.  Photo by  Sid Balachandran  on  Unsplash For such large mammals, pandas have relatively small home ranges. Perhaps this is no surprise. Pandas feed almost exclusively on bamboo. The only real threat to pandas has come from humans. No wonder then that the panda is the symbol of the WWF.  Pandas communicate with one another through vocalization and scent marking. They spray urine, claw tree trunks and rub against objects to mark their paths, yet they do not appear to be territorial as individuals.  Pandas are 99% vegetarian, but, oddly, their digestive system is more typical of a carnivore. For the 1% of their diet

Work Capability Assessments cause suffering for the mentally ill

People suffering from mental health problems are often the most vulnerable when seeking help. Mental health can have a major impact on work, housing, relationships and finances. The Work Capability Assessments (WCA) thus present a particular challenge to those suffering mental illness.  The mentally ill also are often the least able to present their case. Staff involved in assessments lack sufficient expertise or training to understand mental health issues and how they affect capability. Because of  concerns that Work Capability Assessments will have a particularly detrimental effect on the mentally ill,  an  e-petition  on the government web site calls on the Department of Work and Pensions to exclude people with complex mental health problems such as paranoid schizophrenia and personality disorders. Problems with the WCA  have been highlighted in general by the fact that up to 78% of 'fit to work' decisions are  being overturned on appeal. It is all to the good that they