This morning it was announced that with effect from November, Chris Grayling, the Justice Secretary, plans to introduce measures which will make life more austere for male prisoners. We are told Mr Grayling's plans include requiring prisoners to wear uniform for their first two weeks in custody (we weren't aware that they didn't already) and have to earn the right to perks such as the use of a television by participating in work or education and positive engagement with rehabilitation programmes. Access to Sky and cable television will be withdrawn and prisoners will be unable to watch adult DVDs.
If we imagined that these measures would contribute in a meaningful way to the cause of criminal justice, we would applaud them. On the face of it, they don't seem altogether unreasonable. However we very much fear that, taken as a whole, they're little more than a gimmick which will make little real difference whilst increasing the pressures on a hard pressed prison service tasked with managing diverse – and often damaged – human beings.
As a means of preventing repeat offending, imprisonment has a high failure rate due, in no small measure, to a lack of follow up and support services when prisoners are released. There are admittedly success stories and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. However the fact remains that if a man leaves prison with forty five pounds in his pocket, nowhere to go and nothing to do, there is a high risk of him returning sooner or later. This point was made admirably in a radio interview this morning with an intermittent guest of Her Majesty who at least spoke with the voice of experience. Add into the mix a low level of educational attainment and the likelihood of a prisoner returning to custody is increased still further.
If the Government wants to do something useful it could put more resources into supporting prisoners with suitable accommodation upon release (perhaps of a hostel type) and help with finding gainful employment. However our view is that the nation's prisons – in common with schools and hospitals - are better run by those who work in them than politicians out to make a name for themselves.
If we imagined that these measures would contribute in a meaningful way to the cause of criminal justice, we would applaud them. On the face of it, they don't seem altogether unreasonable. However we very much fear that, taken as a whole, they're little more than a gimmick which will make little real difference whilst increasing the pressures on a hard pressed prison service tasked with managing diverse – and often damaged – human beings.
As a means of preventing repeat offending, imprisonment has a high failure rate due, in no small measure, to a lack of follow up and support services when prisoners are released. There are admittedly success stories and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that. However the fact remains that if a man leaves prison with forty five pounds in his pocket, nowhere to go and nothing to do, there is a high risk of him returning sooner or later. This point was made admirably in a radio interview this morning with an intermittent guest of Her Majesty who at least spoke with the voice of experience. Add into the mix a low level of educational attainment and the likelihood of a prisoner returning to custody is increased still further.
If the Government wants to do something useful it could put more resources into supporting prisoners with suitable accommodation upon release (perhaps of a hostel type) and help with finding gainful employment. However our view is that the nation's prisons – in common with schools and hospitals - are better run by those who work in them than politicians out to make a name for themselves.