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

Post a Comment

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
7 comments
Read more

Prioritising people in nursing care.

There has been in recent years concern that care in the NHS has not been sufficiently 'patient centred', or responsive to the needs of the patient on a case basis. It has been felt in care that it as been the patient who has had to adapt to the regime of care, rather than the other way around. Putting patients at the centre of care means being responsive to their needs and supporting them through the process of health care delivery.  Patients should not become identikit sausages in a production line. The nurses body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has responded to this challenge with a revised code of practice reflection get changes in health and social care since the previous code was published in 2008. The Code describes the professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives. Four themes describe what nurses and midwives are expected to do: prioritise people practise effectively preserve safety, and promote professionalism and trust. The
Post a Comment
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more