Wycombe educated Justice Secretary: No more 'holiday camp' prisons (From Bucks Free Press)

The link that makes this story 'local' is about as tenuous as it gets but when all you're looking for is to get all the Daily Mail right wingers frothing at the mouth I guess that's all you need.

Dr Truth wrote:
The link that makes this story 'local' is about as tenuous as it gets but when all you're looking for is to get all the Daily Mail right wingers frothing at the mouth I guess that's all you need.

Oh dear, I think we have a criminal sympathiser on the blog!!
Prison is far too soft they should all be locked in a 6 X 4 cell with a bench to sleep on, a hole in the floor and no outside time what- so-ever, in the cell for the term and never see daylight. That would deter them but instead we have morons who think they should have this and have that and all that does is pander to them and does nothing to deter them. The system is far too soft.

Tigeran; nail on head !!
Soft centered, bleeding heart, liberal do-gooders, I'm sure you'll respond with Dickensian similarities and we're a developed, humanitarian society blah, blah. Well, treating offenders nicely, giving them everything they want etc has resulted in the break down in respect for law and order, civil responsibility and respect for this country's values. Dr Truth; which side of the fence are you on or are you also just trying to get a reaction? I don't read the Daily Mail but i know what's right and I know what's wrong. It's time for change.

I wouldn't worry either way as this is what every new minister says and they never actually do anything.

Quite why governments think moving people round helps is beyond me; surely it is better to get someone who takes the time to learn the ropes and can then make informed decisions.

BucksComment wrote:
I wouldn't worry either way as this is what every new minister says and they never actually do anything.

Quite why governments think moving people round helps is beyond me; surely it is better to get someone who takes the time to learn the ropes and can then make informed decisions.

What? .... "learn the ropes" .... now, now!

If Chris Grayling actually used the phrase "holiday camp prisons", then he's a lot more stupid than I took him for.

Prisons are not holiday camps, not even close (I say this as someone who has been inside just under half the UK's prisons) - if he wants to end the perception that they are, all he needs to do is prevent the Daily Mail & other rags printing inaccurate twaddle. Better men than Chris Grayling have tried that and failed, though.

The poll "Is your perception that prisons are too tough/not tough enough/just right" verges on the insulting in its stupidity: it's one heck of a lot more complicated than that.

philbo wrote:
If Chris Grayling actually used the phrase "holiday camp prisons", then he's a lot more stupid than I took him for.

Prisons are not holiday camps, not even close (I say this as someone who has been inside just under half the UK's prisons) - if he wants to end the perception that they are, all he needs to do is prevent the Daily Mail & other rags printing inaccurate twaddle. Better men than Chris Grayling have tried that and failed, though.

The poll "Is your perception that prisons are too tough/not tough enough/just right" verges on the insulting in its stupidity: it's one heck of a lot more complicated than that.

I assume you are a prison gaurd or the like? I am genuinly interested to hear from someone who has first hand experience as I admit we only hear what the press / news say. I will be honest and say that I think the harsher the better as it is not meant to be by any stretch of the imagination a 'holiday camp' but all too many times you hear of the 'perks' they get.

In my previous career I supplied security systems to prisons. The prison estate in the UK is extremely varied - some (not many) buildings go back hundreds of years, there are quite a few Victorian ones and a lot of new prisons. Prison management (& workforce) also seems to vary hugely: some seem to have their minds firmly in the 19th century.. What you see in pretty much any press story is one of the outliers, an exception that says nothing about what life is like for the other tens of thousands.

"The harsher the better" is a bad idea, though: bear in mind that (nearly) everyone in prison is going to be let out at some point in the future - surely the best thing for society (i.e. for you, me and everyone else) is for those former prisoners not to reoffend? An excessively harsh environment in prison has been shown not to lead to this outcome.

Stories about "perks" that an individual prisoner may have managed to wangle himself by gaming the system, influencing individual prison officers or whatever are not representative of conditions generally, and should never have any effect on policy.

tigeran wrote:

Dr Truth wrote:
The link that makes this story 'local' is about as tenuous as it gets but when all you're looking for is to get all the Daily Mail right wingers frothing at the mouth I guess that's all you need.

Oh dear, I think we have a criminal sympathiser on the blog!!
Prison is far too soft they should all be locked in a 6 X 4 cell with a bench to sleep on, a hole in the floor and no outside time what- so-ever, in the cell for the term and never see daylight. That would deter them but instead we have morons who think they should have this and have that and all that does is pander to them and does nothing to deter them. The system is far too soft.

Oh dear we have another human rights do-gooder. Why give these people so much space? A bench to sleep on!?! What’s wrong with a bucket!?!?! You are far too soft….

philbo wrote:
In my previous career I supplied security systems to prisons. The prison estate in the UK is extremely varied - some (not many) buildings go back hundreds of years, there are quite a few Victorian ones and a lot of new prisons. Prison management (& workforce) also seems to vary hugely: some seem to have their minds firmly in the 19th century.. What you see in pretty much any press story is one of the outliers, an exception that says nothing about what life is like for the other tens of thousands.

"The harsher the better" is a bad idea, though: bear in mind that (nearly) everyone in prison is going to be let out at some point in the future - surely the best thing for society (i.e. for you, me and everyone else) is for those former prisoners not to reoffend? An excessively harsh environment in prison has been shown not to lead to this outcome.

Stories about "perks" that an individual prisoner may have managed to wangle himself by gaming the system, influencing individual prison officers or whatever are not representative of conditions generally, and should never have any effect on policy.

Thank you for your reply but you say "An excessively harsh environment in prison has been shown not to lead to this outcome" well, its not working with the softly, softly approach either is it?! The re offending rate is apparently through the roof as, ok all be it from what you read in the papers, why wouldnt they re offend when all they get is a slap on the wrist, a fraction of the sentence given to them and again what we hear in the papers, an easy life inside! It does not seem to be much of a deterant. How do we know a much more harsh approach in a modern way of administering it would not be better? We will never know because the 'bleeding heart' do gooders would never let it be trialed! Prison is there as punishment and punishment should be harsh. It works in nature as it is generally most normal persons (there are exceptions of course that would never change) natural response to a horrible experience, is to not want to go through that again!! No, I think we have tried and failed with the nice approach, we now need to get hard.

FH Leveller wrote:

tigeran wrote:

Dr Truth wrote:
The link that makes this story 'local' is about as tenuous as it gets but when all you're looking for is to get all the Daily Mail right wingers frothing at the mouth I guess that's all you need.

Oh dear, I think we have a criminal sympathiser on the blog!!
Prison is far too soft they should all be locked in a 6 X 4 cell with a bench to sleep on, a hole in the floor and no outside time what- so-ever, in the cell for the term and never see daylight. That would deter them but instead we have morons who think they should have this and have that and all that does is pander to them and does nothing to deter them. The system is far too soft.

Oh dear we have another human rights do-gooder. Why give these people so much space? A bench to sleep on!?! What’s wrong with a bucket!?!?! You are far too soft….

I agree! A daily thrashing within an inch of their life is needed too!

Depending on your view prisons are there to deter crime, protect the public, punish convicted criminals or rehabilitate offenders. These can be mutually conflicting purposes.

Without a measure of punishment in jail there is no deterrent but many criminals suffer from poor education, mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction. Until these are dealt with there will always be re-offending.

My gut reaction is to side with the hang ‘em & flog ‘em brigade, but reoffending rates at the new Norwegian Halden prion are truly impressive. And that is one of the cushiest prisons in the world.

Just glad it’s not my decision.

Or Tigerans.

So you ask for an opinion from somebody who actually has experience of the sector and then choose to ignore it over the view spun by media outlets with their own sales driven agendas.

Surely philbo is more well informed?

Tigeran said:

Thank you for your reply but you say "An excessively harsh environment in prison has been shown not to lead to this outcome" well, its not working with the softly, softly approach either is it?!

I wouldn't know: we don't have a "softly softly" approach at the moment.

Does this mean you actually meant what you wrote in your first comment?

The re offending rate is apparently through the roof as, ok all be it from what you read in the papers, why wouldnt they re offend when all they get is a slap on the wrist, a fraction of the sentence given to them and again what we hear in the papers, an easy life inside!

The two most commonly-cited reasons for reoffending (from the DoJ stats tinyurl.com/82cg3vq) are lack of a job and lack of a place to live.

Being nastier to people while they're in prison isn't going to affect that one iota. Similarly, poor treatment has no noticeable deterrent effect as people by and large don't commit crimes expecting to be caught.

How do we know a much more harsh approach in a modern way of administering it would not be better? We will never know because the 'bleeding heart' do gooders would never let it be trialed!

Which "bleeding heart do gooders" would that be? Exactly what were you thinking of trialling? Sorry, but this is so much ill-thought-out emotive silliness brought on by reading too many Daily Mail articles.

Prison is there as punishment and punishment should be harsh. It works in nature as it is generally most normal persons (there are exceptions of course that would never change) natural response to a horrible experience, is to not want to go through that again!!

Except that studies show that it really doesn't work like that - if you were right, reoffending rates in places that had harsh conditions would be considerably lower. My only first-hand experience would be in South Africa, where conditions (in prisons that weren't the one I was working in, fortunately) really are dire, yet crime and reoffending are higher than they are here.

No, I think we have tried and failed with the nice approach, we now need to get hard.

Sorry, but that's simply garbage from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. There is no "nice approach" at the moment, and if you want to get hard, I suggest you find some viagra.

philbo wrote:
Tigeran said:

Thank you for your reply but you say "An excessively harsh environment in prison has been shown not to lead to this outcome" well, its not working with the softly, softly approach either is it?!

I wouldn't know: we don't have a "softly softly" approach at the moment.

Does this mean you actually meant what you wrote in your first comment?

The re offending rate is apparently through the roof as, ok all be it from what you read in the papers, why wouldnt they re offend when all they get is a slap on the wrist, a fraction of the sentence given to them and again what we hear in the papers, an easy life inside!

The two most commonly-cited reasons for reoffending (from the DoJ stats tinyurl.com/82cg3vq) are lack of a job and lack of a place to live.

Being nastier to people while they're in prison isn't going to affect that one iota. Similarly, poor treatment has no noticeable deterrent effect as people by and large don't commit crimes expecting to be caught.

How do we know a much more harsh approach in a modern way of administering it would not be better? We will never know because the 'bleeding heart' do gooders would never let it be trialed!

Which "bleeding heart do gooders" would that be? Exactly what were you thinking of trialling? Sorry, but this is so much ill-thought-out emotive silliness brought on by reading too many Daily Mail articles.

Prison is there as punishment and punishment should be harsh. It works in nature as it is generally most normal persons (there are exceptions of course that would never change) natural response to a horrible experience, is to not want to go through that again!!

Except that studies show that it really doesn't work like that - if you were right, reoffending rates in places that had harsh conditions would be considerably lower. My only first-hand experience would be in South Africa, where conditions (in prisons that weren't the one I was working in, fortunately) really are dire, yet crime and reoffending are higher than they are here.

No, I think we have tried and failed with the nice approach, we now need to get hard.

Sorry, but that's simply garbage from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. There is no "nice approach" at the moment, and if you want to get hard, I suggest you find some viagra.

Just shoot them then!

FH Leveller wrote:
Depending on your view prisons are there to deter crime, protect the public, punish convicted criminals or rehabilitate offenders. These can be mutually conflicting purposes.

Without a measure of punishment in jail there is no deterrent but many criminals suffer from poor education, mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction. Until these are dealt with there will always be re-offending.

My gut reaction is to side with the hang ‘em & flog ‘em brigade, but reoffending rates at the new Norwegian Halden prion are truly impressive. And that is one of the cushiest prisons in the world.

Just glad it’s not my decision.

Or Tigerans.

I wish it was my decision, would be sorted in no time!

philbo wrote:
In my previous career I supplied security systems to prisons. The prison estate in the UK is extremely varied - some (not many) buildings go back hundreds of years, there are quite a few Victorian ones and a lot of new prisons. Prison management (& workforce) also seems to vary hugely: some seem to have their minds firmly in the 19th century.. What you see in pretty much any press story is one of the outliers, an exception that says nothing about what life is like for the other tens of thousands.

"The harsher the better" is a bad idea, though: bear in mind that (nearly) everyone in prison is going to be let out at some point in the future - surely the best thing for society (i.e. for you, me and everyone else) is for those former prisoners not to reoffend? An excessively harsh environment in prison has been shown not to lead to this outcome.

Stories about "perks" that an individual prisoner may have managed to wangle himself by gaming the system, influencing individual prison officers or whatever are not representative of conditions generally, and should never have any effect on policy.

At last the voice of reason,something you'll never hear fron tigger,well said Philbo.
The 'punishment' for a crime is loss of liberty, anything else is revenge, which is not a very constructive thing.
Tigger, have you ever visited a prison beyond the pages of whatever paper you read, or t.v programme you watch?
Again i doubt very much that you would pay any attention to anything that would make you question your very simplistic view. I would suggest you try Brixton, or the Scrubbs if you really want to see how inhumanely prisoners are treated.
If you want someone to behave humanely, ie, not commit crime, do you think that will be achieved by treating them like animals?

sai-diva wrote:

philbo wrote:
In my previous career I supplied security systems to prisons. The prison estate in the UK is extremely varied - some (not many) buildings go back hundreds of years, there are quite a few Victorian ones and a lot of new prisons. Prison management (& workforce) also seems to vary hugely: some seem to have their minds firmly in the 19th century.. What you see in pretty much any press story is one of the outliers, an exception that says nothing about what life is like for the other tens of thousands.

"The harsher the better" is a bad idea, though: bear in mind that (nearly) everyone in prison is going to be let out at some point in the future - surely the best thing for society (i.e. for you, me and everyone else) is for those former prisoners not to reoffend? An excessively harsh environment in prison has been shown not to lead to this outcome.

Stories about "perks" that an individual prisoner may have managed to wangle himself by gaming the system, influencing individual prison officers or whatever are not representative of conditions generally, and should never have any effect on policy.

At last the voice of reason,something you'll never hear fron tigger,well said Philbo.
The 'punishment' for a crime is loss of liberty, anything else is revenge, which is not a very constructive thing.
Tigger, have you ever visited a prison beyond the pages of whatever paper you read, or t.v programme you watch?
Again i doubt very much that you would pay any attention to anything that would make you question your very simplistic view. I would suggest you try Brixton, or the Scrubbs if you really want to see how inhumanely prisoners are treated.
If you want someone to behave humanely, ie, not commit crime, do you think that will be achieved by treating them like animals?

They are animals, useless ones at that. And no my friends are not criminals, I take it you have?

Thank you, sai-diva - and you're right, Wormwood Scrubs is an awful place, still trying to drag itself into the 20th century (or possibly "was" - last time I was there was a good many years ago.. but things change very slowly)

Tigeran - to start with, I thought you weren't being serious, then it seemed like you were. Now it looks like you're being flippant possibly because you're trying to make out that you weren't being serious? I'm confused.. and suspect Poe's Law might be involved in some way.

philbo wrote:
Thank you, sai-diva - and you're right, Wormwood Scrubs is an awful place, still trying to drag itself into the 20th century (or possibly "was" - last time I was there was a good many years ago.. but things change very slowly)

Tigeran - to start with, I thought you weren't being serious, then it seemed like you were. Now it looks like you're being flippant possibly because you're trying to make out that you weren't being serious? I'm confused.. and suspect Poe's Law might be involved in some way.

I am totally serious about inmates. I could not care less about them and the more they suffer the better. They have somewhere along the line made someone else's life a misery so they can rot for all I care.

I find it hard to credit that anyone can think at that sort of simplistic level. Not everyone in prison has made someone else's life a misery (especially when you consider that over one fifth of remand prisoners are subsequently found not guilty, >11,000 of them in 2007), and there are plenty who did something stupid when too young & immature to realize the full extent of what they were doing - there are lots of people in prison who are capable of becoming decent members of society, given a chance.

What you want to do is deny anybody in prison any chance of being what we would think of as normal. Either that means you haven't thought it through, or you're really not a very nice person.

Is prison too harsh or too soft ? . Does it work or doesn't it ? What should we do to make it work ?
.
I don't think any of us really knows. Particularly politicians , criminologists or sociologists - they are the ones that keep the whole system on the boil all the time constantly . In fact they can make quite a good a living out of it.
.
Professional or serious criminals are of the opinion that other people are there to be be exploited and they should not actually do any constructive worthwhile work for a living - a bit like politicians , financiers and some religious leaders I suppose.
.
These criminals are in need of a lot of expensive handling , treatment and long-term therapy. They are damaged goods and will be a threat to society if not 'cured' or 'see the error of their ways' Again a bit like politicians , financiers and some religious leaders.
.
It is all a rather subjective opinion as to whether it is worth the time, effort and expense involved in any remedial treatment . It depends on the sort of society we all want to live in.
.
I think collectively and democratically we could find a logical , reasoned and humane answer to persistent criminality and recidivism.
.
However we have also got to solve all the problems the human race has caused by with politicians , financiers and religious leaders - otherwise they (ie politicians etc) will make the the task impossible for the rest of us.
.
Not all the monkeys are in the zoo and not all criminals ever end up in prison - especially when it comes to politicians , financiers and some religious leaders.

philbo wrote:
I find it hard to credit that anyone can think at that sort of simplistic level. Not everyone in prison has made someone else's life a misery (especially when you consider that over one fifth of remand prisoners are subsequently found not guilty, >11,000 of them in 2007), and there are plenty who did something stupid when too young & immature to realize the full extent of what they were doing - there are lots of people in prison who are capable of becoming decent members of society, given a chance.

What you want to do is deny anybody in prison any chance of being what we would think of as normal. Either that means you haven't thought it through, or you're really not a very nice person.

LOL! Whatever, they are scum and deserve to suffer.

philbo wrote:
I find it hard to credit that anyone can think at that sort of simplistic level. Not everyone in prison has made someone else's life a misery (especially when you consider that over one fifth of remand prisoners are subsequently found not guilty, >11,000 of them in 2007), and there are plenty who did something stupid when too young & immature to realize the full extent of what they were doing - there are lots of people in prison who are capable of becoming decent members of society, given a chance.

What you want to do is deny anybody in prison any chance of being what we would think of as normal. Either that means you haven't thought it through, or you're really not a very nice person.

I suspect most commentators on here believed themselves to be "nice persons" until their houses were burgled, their daughters raped, their kids killed in a hit-and-run.
~
The fifth who "got away with it" ( OK, were found not guilty) probably would not have found themselves on remand had they conformed with what is acceptable in society. So an unsound argument, given so many are repeat offenders.
~
Thanks for your "simplistic" inference; I really do prefer my interpretation of criminality. If in prison, they cannot commit a further offence.
~
See Manchester Police; what do they think ?

My house was burgled about 13 months ago. Yes, I was angry, but I would still far rather that if the person who burgled my house was ever caught and jailed that they came out of prison cured of whatever drugs habit they were stealing to fund, also willing and capable to get & keep a job. If you were the tiniest bit rational about it, you would, too.

Conflating all prisoners (including those on remand) with those who killed the police officers in Manchester or rapists of close family members is simply unjust.

The fifth who "got away with it" ( OK, were found not guilty) probably would not have found themselves on remand had they conformed with what is acceptable in society. So an unsound argument, given so many are repeat offenders.

One of the fundamental tenets of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". Think about it - not knee-jerk, Daily Mail-headline-driven emotive reaction. Think. You obviously haven't so far.

Innocent and found not guilty ? - If some blatant criminals , cheats and crooks can afford expensive legal representation then they have a far better chance of 'being found innocent' than your ordinary citizen.
.
It does seem that the general public is losing (or has already lost) faith in what they perceive as the biased badly managed over-subsidized and overpaid English legal system that they perceive we now have.
.
It is another separate argument as to whether it is too lax and liberal or too severe and harsh.
.
That it is badly administered seems to be peoples experience and viewpoint - get that right and perhaps 'proper' judgement and justice might follow on.
.
Of course (need you ask) it is ruled over and governed by gangs of flaky ever-changing politicians who constantly pull the Law this way and that to suit them. To nobody's benefit except their own.

philbo wrote:
My house was burgled about 13 months ago. Yes, I was angry, but I would still far rather that if the person who burgled my house was ever caught and jailed that they came out of prison cured of whatever drugs habit they were stealing to fund, also willing and capable to get & keep a job. If you were the tiniest bit rational about it, you would, too.

Conflating all prisoners (including those on remand) with those who killed the police officers in Manchester or rapists of close family members is simply unjust.

The fifth who "got away with it" ( OK, were found not guilty) probably would not have found themselves on remand had they conformed with what is acceptable in society. So an unsound argument, given so many are repeat offenders.

One of the fundamental tenets of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". Think about it - not knee-jerk, Daily Mail-headline-driven emotive reaction. Think. You obviously haven't so far.

Let agree to disagree, the system DOES NOT WORK as it is at the moment. I am afraid whether you say it is harsh enough as it is in jail at the moment or not I believe it should be HELL in their so they REALLY dont want to go back in. They are in their because they BROKE THE LAW, it is supposed tobe and should be a deterant and it obviously is not. 93% of voters agree it is too soft and thats a fact!!

If you make it "HELL" in jail, what you'll have coming out will be demons.

As I've pointed out (and you've pointedly ignored) not everyone in prison has broken the law - you want to treat innocent (until proven guilty, remember) people inhumanely, too? How do you propose to deal with the wrongfully-convicted
, if they've been suffering in your ill-conceived hell-holes?

I really don't care that 93% (of people who voted on a BFP poll - don't kid yourself into thinking it's representative of anything other than BFP readers who click on poll voting buttons) think it's "too soft" - I've already given my opinion on how stupid it is as a poll question.

philbo wrote:
If you make it "HELL" in jail, what you'll have coming out will be demons.

As I've pointed out (and you've pointedly ignored) not everyone in prison has broken the law - you want to treat innocent (until proven guilty, remember) people inhumanely, too? How do you propose to deal with the wrongfully-convicted

, if they've been suffering in your ill-conceived hell-holes?

I really don't care that 93% (of people who voted on a BFP poll - don't kid yourself into thinking it's representative of anything other than BFP readers who click on poll voting buttons) think it's "too soft" - I've already given my opinion on how stupid it is as a poll question.

Then have a two tear system then, on remand in the current cushy little number and convicted placed in their 4 x 6 cell with bucket and a bench to sleep on. So very simple! Why make it complicated?

Why not have a poll on stupid poll questions ?
.
I repeat English legal system is appallingly organized and administered and is continuously compromised and prejudiced. Therefore ordinary folk see the 'justice' it produces as not fit for purpose.
.
It's nothing to do with as to whether the sentences / fines handed out are too lenient , fair or too harsh. We have a badly run system - but carry on believing the system is 'The Best in The World' propaganda that the politicians and lawyers say it is , if that's what you want to believe.
.
That falsehood is only in their interests , not the general public - who are mostly innocent and without power or influence.
.
Parliament is full of inept , low grade , self-interested or failed lawyers btw.

tigeran wrote:

philbo wrote:
I find it hard to credit that anyone can think at that sort of simplistic level. Not everyone in prison has made someone else's life a misery (especially when you consider that over one fifth of remand prisoners are subsequently found not guilty, >11,000 of them in 2007), and there are plenty who did something stupid when too young & immature to realize the full extent of what they were doing - there are lots of people in prison who are capable of becoming decent members of society, given a chance.

What you want to do is deny anybody in prison any chance of being what we would think of as normal. Either that means you haven't thought it through, or you're really not a very nice person.

LOL! Whatever, they are scum and deserve to suffer.

Tigger, me old mate, what a well reasoned argument you do present.
If the harshess of the sentence is any kind of deterrent, why, in countries where they have the death penalty, is there so much crime?
I look forward to your response.

JB and Philbo.... Phew!! a relief to read enlightened and intelligent comments fro a change.Don't hold your breath whilst waiting for tigger to change his mind. What do you reckon, Daily Mail or Sun?

Can Gauleiter Tigeran provide any examples of where a 'hell on earth' prison system that punishes and brutalises rather than rehabilitates stops endemic crime rather than feeding it?

Is it the one where everybody who enters its portals are executed ? I can't remember the name.