These two sentences often come out of the same mouths. Can anyone reconcile them?
"I believe in rehabilitation".
"Prisons should be harsh, unpleasant places".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ben
Lecturing
About Me
- prisonerben
- United Kingdom
- Previously known as "one of Britain's best known prisoners...he constantly questions authority and exposes the futility of the system" The Times, Ben was finally released from prison after 32 years in August 2012. Pleading guilty to the murder of a friend when he was 14 years old, he renounced violence and fought for the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings. As a result of speaking truth to power, he served far longer than the recommended 10 years, leading Education Secretary Michael Gove to argue that he had "been punished excessively for a crime committed as a child". One of the more intellectual of prisoner-campaigners, Ben chose to educate himself from schoolboy level to having both undergraduate and post graduate degrees. He is currently one of very few prisoners in Britain ever to attempt a Doctorate. Ben's speciality is non-violent action and the Human Needs Theory. Now on Life Licence, He is forging a career as a CJ policy consultant, writer and - as ever - campaigner.
People hold contradictory ideas. That's why its always best to follow principals rather than individuals.
ReplyDeleteIMHO Its because the same tool (prison) is used to try and achieve 3 competing goals - the old revenge, deterring others and rehabilition. Hope the recent trouble in ford doesnt affect your chances of finally getting out... :) george
ReplyDeleteNot really because if the one person is saying both things they're usually the type who don't feel the urge to plug their brain into their mouth before opening it.
ReplyDeleteThere is no excuse for that kind of ignorance from those in positions of power. The fact that 'harsh, unpleasant places' may well be the cause of 'criminality'(excuse the blanket) seems not to occur to these people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gaina, but would go a bit further and say that in my experience it would not be that uncommon to hear both statements coming from some prison officers. For example, it's noteworthy that the HMI report into Ford Cat D open prison specifically mentions the unhelpful attitude of some staff.
ReplyDeleteThese are not contradictory. It's rooted in the belief that if (as an extreme example) prison involved daily beatings with a spiked cat o' nine tails followed by vinegar baths and salt rubs, then prisoners would be more likely to go straight in order to avoid ever going bach to such a regime.
ReplyDeleteThey're wrong (aren't they?) but not contradictory.
The two statements under 'Help' are contradictory and everyone has strange and contradictory ideas. That is in the realms of people and their ideas which is how this post is presented.
ReplyDeleteAs for how institutions like prisons are run, they probably do contain those two or (even three as g specified) elements.
Many prisoners are victims of abuse themselves, and turned to drugs/alchohol as a means of numbing their pain. Many have mental health issues, literacy problems, no family support etc etc. How are they ever going to develop and progress in a positive way, or change their ways in yet another 'harsh, unpleasant place'?. For many, they've known nothing else. Prisoners are individuals with different needs like the rest of us and should not be lumped together as though 'one size fits all'. It is tragic that despite all this some young people I've met still feel 'safer' inside than fending for themselves on the streets of our towns and cities.
ReplyDeleteThe statements are not contradictory. On the one hand to rehabilitate is to give a prisoner the personal tools to handle ordinary non criminal life, which we desire of most of them, on the other it has to be a harsh unpleasant place so those who have not stooped to that level don't. After all if it was a push over where all your problems would be solved with no unpleasantness then many would want to opt out of the hard grind...
ReplyDeleteThat said, prison has many harsh realities regardless of regime, that people don't think off when they hear (wrongly for the most part) of prison perks, and that is the loss of liberty for a start.
It does seem common sense what you are saying here, but actually takes no account of the many cases of injustice that exist, Ben's being one. Also your own comment here is a bit of a contradiction too; that prison has to be a harsh unpleasant place and yet some people only hear of prison perks. Not only do people hold contradictory ideas, society itself is one big contradiction. Again, that's why it is best to follow and fight for basic principals like humanity and human dignity in all things
ReplyDeleteBen's current position has nothing to do with prison being either harsh and unpleasant, nor a place of rehabilitation. He was rightly sent to prison, and rehabilitated himself. The reason why he is still there is not because prison is or isn't nice, it is because the bureaucracy is malign and perverse. He could be given breakfast in bed every day, a "companion" every night and the place made far more congenial, yet still be there because of the nature of the bureaucracy.
ReplyDeleteIt is still true that there are gross mis carriages of justice. Some things I have heard about access to 'perks' in prison often prove it to be a thoroughly unjust and corrupt institution, just as life is here too for us on the outside, hence why some people (like the ones Jules referred to) might actually feel safer inside.
ReplyDeleteBen is not the victim of a miscarriage of justice, in the sense that he definitely did kill someone, he got a reasonable sentence (life, the only one available) and a sensible "tariff" of 10 years. What he is a victim of is the way the state works, which is that you must comply with its idiosyncrasies and not the other way around or life becomes difficult. In his case this results in him being locked up for £800,000 longer than I as a tax payer would care to pay, and 20 years longer than he would like to serve, but in many walks of life where a bureaucracy is involved if you don't don't to their tune, they don't play. Is it corrupt? No, not in the sense that corruption is normally meant. Is is wrong and perverse? Absolutely.
ReplyDeleteIts not just a matter of the 'bureaucracy' ( by that do you mean 'management'?), but the whole rotten system, from when you are born until when you die, it is rotten to the core, the whole economics of it, not just that some bits of it are wrong and perverse, but everything is wrong. A bit of tweaking which involves changing high ranking personnel will do precious little. Cutting the dreaded 'bureaucracy' ( whatevs) might be and is currently meaning cuts to services and things people rely on and need. Ben and many others are victims of an unjust prison system and its reflective of the unjust nature of this society.
ReplyDeleteThe bureaucracy is not just the nature of the management it is the nature of an all pervading attitude.
ReplyDeleteYou get it when "they" have a power over "you" but not when "you" have a power over "them".
In short a complacent organisation that does not need your input is more likely to treat you badly compared to one which needs your custom. (Not always the case, but when you come across a small business that is bad and there are lots of alternatives you just go elsewhere).
There is no way Ben can get a good service because he can't shop around. He can blog though and that kicks the system. For everyone outside, it is a matter of making sure there is enough competition and people know who is the boss.
The problem you say is an 'all pervading attitude' and the solution lies in competition and everyone knowing who is boss hmmmm, interesting, seems a bit of a circle to me, oh well, I'm off to bed now, goodnight.
ReplyDeleteWhat an interesting post, and ensuing discussion. The "system" is not fit for purpose, until joe public sees the benefit in rehabilitation as opposed to revenge, and the politicians not just tackling those issues which will win them votes, will we ever get the debate and reform we so badly need?, or the money to back it up?.
ReplyDeletePeople can believe in rehabilitation and deterrence at the same time, surely?
ReplyDelete@ Flynny
ReplyDeleteThey can support both, yes, but very few of them can come up with a plan that actually stands a chance of creating both. The simple reality is that unpleasant painful environments are not conducive to learning new coping skills and developing sophisticated moral reasoning; not saying it can't happen, just that it's less likely to. That being so, if you want to both rehabilitate and deter, you need to think of a deterrent besides making prison hell.
From an article in The Times of Malta today:
ReplyDeleteA prisoner complaining about horrendous treatment, and many people commenting saying that this is what he deserves:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110106/local/prisoner-threatens-legal-action-over-horrendous-treatment