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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As