Nearly a quarter of all prisoners are forced to stay in overcrowded cells while serving their sentences, according to new figures released today.I suppose they couldn’t avoid it by…not committing crimes?
Just a thought…
The worst affected prison in England and Wales was Wandsworth, in south London, where on a typical day in 2012-2013, 835 inmates were forced to share cells which contained an open toilet, said the Howard League for Penal Reform.
The last prison inspectors’ report from 2011 said conditions for too many prisoners at the jail was “demeaning, unsafe and fell below what could be classed as decent” .As were the crimes for which they ended up behind bars, but then, why should the Howard League concern itself with those?
Because, of course, it’s them again:
Frances Crook, Howard League chief executive, said: “At last, we have the picture of the real state of overcrowding in our prisons. It’s far worse than anyone imagined: one in four people behind bars are packed like sardines into cramped cells.
“Staff cuts and overcrowding mean that grown men spend all weekend and up to 22 hours a day during the week cooped up like battery chickens. No wonder violence and self-injury is rife.
“If the Ministry of Justice is serious about reducing reoffending it must tackle overcrowding now.”If the horrors of having to share a cell aren’t cutting reoffending, why should making it more pleasant do the trick? Which is, thankfully, the robust response from the Prisons Minister:
Prisons Minister Jeremy Wright said: “Let’s be clear what overcrowding in prison actually means – typically it means having to share a cell rather than have one to yourself. Prisoners are treated humanely but prison is not somewhere that anyone should be comfortable about going back to.”Quite…
16 comments:
I'm happy if they're as crowded as battery hens. Remove their television sets, feed them the same as NHS patients and make them serve the full sentence and prison might just start to become a deterrent. Is the Howard Comission one of those charidies the taxpayer is funding? If so let's save some more money by making its funding strictly voluntary.
Quite simply, a lot of crimes, where the offender doesn't absolutely have to be kept out of circulation in the interests of public safety, could be dealt with by corporal punishment. Just give the bastards a good thrashing, with the number of strokes doubled for each subsequent offence for which the punishment is applicable. It saves time and money and hurts like hell.
Truth be told, the very fact that prisons are full does seem to suggest that prison as a deterrent does not work, nor does it seem to work as a corrective institute. What the alternative might be, is anyone’s guess, but the prospect of corporal punishment might make many think before they act.
Of course, it has to be said that not everyone in prison is there voluntarily...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21442107
Our wonderful justice system is still sending innocents to jail.
Poor dears. Now where did I put that onion...
Probably true that prison as a deterrent does not work, the power of genetics is such that it is unreasonable to expect that it would, but for the liberal, hope always springs eternal
What would work, is work. Why is it that every law abiding man and woman expects to work eight hours a day five days \a week, but not criminals.
If criminals had to work eight hours a day six days a week, that would be a serious deterrent.
I`m with Andrew on this,a right good public whipping and a couple of days in the stocks might make them think twice and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
When RAF and Army camps were closing under the 'Peace dividend' they were offered to the prison service who declined them as 'below the standard expected' of a modern prison. They were perfectly all right for servicemen to live in though. This country treats it prisoners better than its military personnel.
"No wonder violence and self-injury is rife"
Good - a few in-cell murders and suicides will free up prison places.
The Howard league, demonstrating everything that is rotten and wrong with the UK.
During the war, they reckoned six men could build a Nissen hut in eight hours.
There's no reason the whole prison population couldn't be housed on abandoned airfields in that way.
And then made to work- which, as Tyrranus rightly said, would be a most effective deterrent. Especially if their ability to watch TV in the evening was directly linked to how much work they'd got done.
None of the prisoners are forced to live in such conditions. They choose to. They chose to commit a crime which carried a custodial sentence. Anyone with half a brain knows from the media that prisons are overcrowded so by choosing to commit a major crime they are choosing to risk being added to the prison population. It's their own stupid fault they don't have single rooms with en-suite. Under the current social experimenting "criminals are victims too" regime, custodial sentences don't work, apart from keeping the scumbags away from the general population. Currently, they have their sentences halved, for good behaviour, as soon as they are booked in. Ideally, they should be given no, or very few privileges initially, and further privileges have to be earned through good behaviour. This first part of the sentence would be the punishment and only when they have achieved a suitable level of behaviour, does the rehabilitation start. The system worked in military prisons, with few wanting to risk going back and those who returned to their units did so as more professionally, and educationally, qualified than before.
Penseivat
I have a friend who, in his much younger days, was convicted of "knowingly being carried in a vehicle he knew or believed to have been stolen". For this he was given six strokes of the cane. He was 17 years old at the time.
Since that time he has never transgressed, even when, a few years after his 'offence' we all went over a swimming pool wall for an after-hours splash.
This was not, of course, in the UK.
Corporal punishment does work, it is effective in reducing re-offending and the costs to Government are negligible.
English grammar aside, that was a delightful plod sermon, Penise.
We must exclude from your 'scumbags' definition, those innocent citizens serving time as a result of malfeasance. The concern you profess for the victims of injustice never extended to the victims of police fit-ups.
" Is the Howard Comission one of those charidies the taxpayer is funding? If so let's save some more money by making its funding strictly voluntary."
Yes! This!
"What the alternative might be, is anyone’s guess..."
I've a few ideas...
"Our wonderful justice system is still sending innocents to jail."
Good point.
"When RAF and Army camps were closing under the 'Peace dividend' they were offered to the prison service who declined them as 'below the standard expected' of a modern prison. They were perfectly all right for servicemen to live in though. "
Thanks to the progressives, and professional bleeding hearts like the Howard League...
Remember also that not only are there people inside because of police fit-ups but in the future there will be increasing numbers of ordinary decent people being jailed for "refusing to kiss the arse of tyranny"-type offences. Just think twice you "murders in the cells--woohoo" idiots--if you have the moral fibre to stand up to the states evil--YOU might be the one in the cell with the nutter.
Violent crims should be punished by violent means--they understand those realities very well indeed. Thieves made to work until they have repaid their thievery. An incentive to steal less and to good work habits.
Post a Comment