Votes for Prisoners

For the uninitiated, this is a tale that has gone on for 5 years and involved the Government revealing utter contempt for the law whenever it conflicts with electoral advantage. As a method of reducing their threadbare legitimacy amongst prisoners, the votes fiasco is central. How can we accept lessons on being law-abiding from those who evade the law with such deliberation? Five years ago, John Hirst (who blogs as jailhouselawyer) delivered a parting shot as he left prison. He challenged the blanket ban on prisoners voting. As demonstrated by my recent piece at the Guardian Online, this issue raises some people's hackles. Nonetheless, it should be noted that this ban is a relatively recent development (within the last 130 years) and it has never been debated in Parliament. It is an issue worthy of substantive and widespread debate. Jailhouselawyer won in the European Court. The Court held that the blanket ban was unlawful and the Government should look at allowing at least some prisoners the vote. The Government appealed but the Grand Chamber upheld the original decision. A small but vital part of the judgement related to lifers. If you read my previous post attempting to explain life sentences, you will appreciate that they are split into two parts. Only the initial part is the punishment period, the rest is on grounds of 'public safety’, a form of protective detention. The Court held that none of the reasons that the Government gave for denying prisoners the vote applied to lifers who were past their punitive period (the ‘tariff’). We should be amongst the prisoners who have that right. The Government response was to promise a period of public consultation. It delayed doing this for three years or so. It then said it would conduct further consultations, which are only now coming to an end. During this time, Minister after Minister has denounced the Court and its judgement, and maintained the stance that no prisoner should gain the right to vote. It has shown a level of contempt for the law that even prisoners find breathtaking and we are not easily impressed. The latest salvo in this campaign has recently been fired by the Minister of Justice himself, who declared that the Government wouldn't alter the law before the next election. At the European level, Jailhouselawyer continues to badger away. The Council of Ministers has deplored the Government’s delaying tactics and insists they properly address the Court judgement by December. We will wait and see how that plays out. On the domestic level, though, the issue is about to get very heated. A lifer, who is post tariff, is in the High Court to challenge the Government’s mendacity and insist that, as he is no longer held in prison for punishment, then he should have his right to vote before the next election. This carries a personal disappointment for me, in that I had hoped to be the one making the challenge. I was beaten to the draw. My strategy was as much political as legal. As a post-tariff lifer, and my crime not being one of the most repulsive, I intended to insert myself into the public eye and challenge public conceptions about prisoners. My crime is serious enough to raise the relevant political and moral issues around the vote, but not so repellent as to have the public throw up their hands in total horror. Further, it was my aim that in gaining post-tariff lifers the vote then the Government would have no political barrier to giving it to all prisoners. After all, if you can give something to murderers and rapists, the Daily Mail can hardly blow a fuse if this is extended to thieves and burglars. I thought this was a clever strategy on my part, even if I do say so myself. Given the reaction to my blog, I think that I was right in my calculations. But alas, I'm not going to be the one in court. All I can do is stand on the sidelines and make the arguments. The man who is taking the challenge is a more, shall we say "difficult", proposition in PR terms. Legally, we share the same status but politically he is a more contentious figure. His crime poses the problem - the rape and murder of an 8 year old girl. The votes case being at least as much politics as law, I could see that he may not be best placed to have the debate. And I asked him to step aside and allow me through; a request he politely declined. Whilst he raises the same legal issues, I fear that his past will make the political battle more difficult than it should be solely due to public reaction. His offence will overshadow the issues. But who said politics was easy? We must work with the circumstances as they are. I intend to try to make a virtue out of these difficulties, arguing that this lifer’s offences raise no new issues but are so awful that they sharpen the issues that need to be debated. Giving the vote - giving any rights - to people is easy if they are popular. It is the people that are despised that need them the most. We will have to wait for the outcome of his legal challenge to see what the future holds. All I know so far is that the Government has behaved shamefully and risks the startling prospect of the next General Election being rendered illegal. And remember that they do this not out of some grand political or moral principle, but only because they don't want to carry the burden of being the party that gave convicts the vote.

The Benefits of Prisoners Voting

The principle legal and political arguments for extending the franchise to prisoners have been rehearsed elsewhere (jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com, passim). The practical benefits of such a development, the positive results that accrue, are less often discussed.

One fear that is paraded as a principled objection to prisoners voting is that we will exercise undue influence over MP's. The result, it seems, will be our demanding to be given the type of lifestyle that the tabloid press and more desperate MP's claim that we already enjoy.

In all but a very small number of constituencies the number of prisoners voting will amount to little more than a whisper in a gale. In some though, such as the Isle of Wight, then the preponderance of prisoners may well hold the balance of power between the political parties.

This is not to be feared; it will merely be the most extreme manifestation of one of the most important benefits that result from prisoners voting - to raise the issues of penology out of the political gutter. At present, very few MP's pay any attention to the prison in their constituency. Even fewer give thought to the prisoners and none that I know of ever hold surgeries.

This deliberate neglect of our concerns can hardly be divorced from the fact that prisoners do not yet exercise political influence. Once we have the franchise, MP's will doubtless take a sudden interest in prisons and prisoners. Whether this will have any practical effects on the landings must remain a mystery, but one benefit will be certain: MP's will gain an education into the realities of imprisonment.

The public atmosphere has for far too long been polluted by the mindless, uninformed belching of politicians who are desperate to grab the votes of the middle classes. In that cause, they happily pronounce in Parliament and scribble for the newspapers the most trite, banal and ignorant comments relating to prisoners and our conditions. Their knowledge of the reality is best described as feeble.

But with a prisoners franchise must come significant and sustained contact with prisoners and their conditions. In this sense, I feel that the franchise can only increase the sum of the general good. Politicians will feel constrained from indulging their ignorance as their appreciation of the prison system grows.

It follows from the increase in knowledge that issues relating to prisons that arise in Parliament may be debated with a quality previously unknown, and that the scrutiny they aim at the Ministry of Justice may be sufficient to ease the worst excesses of government stupidity that we labour under. The keen eye of the more active MP's may challenge the Prison Service to recall that they have citizens in their custody, and not merely the dispossessed.

We need not look to this grand political stage to see the advantages of political involvement. If MP's take an interest, even if out of political self-preservation, and make themselves available to address prisoners’ concerns then the effects could be felt on the landings. The shape that daily prison life takes could be altered. This is not going to be a case of every frustrated prisoner resorting to “I'll tell my MP” in the face of negative decisions. MP's are neither stupid nor puppets. But if MP's take up even some of the inconsistent decisions, abusive or degrading treatment, or plain stupid ideas with the Governor then the situation may alter.

Bit by bit, the involvement of prisoners in the political process may begin to recast the topology of power in prisons. Prisoners may - just may - grow a little faith in their own abilities to play a part in legitimate processes. For generations we have been forced to accept the idea that because we are allowed no responsibility, then we must be irresponsible. Prisoners rarely bought into this belief, but those who deigned to rise up to speak found that there were no forums in which to be heard.

With the vote there inevitably comes a small measure of responsibility. Prisoners can legitimately enquire why, if we are able to help decide the fate of governments, we are not given an opportunity to discuss or decide the myriad of small issues that comprise our daily lives? There is no answer to such a question, for the ability to vote marks the individual as a citizen, as a member of the society and as a capable human being.

And once prisoners grow comfortable in the clothing of responsibility, no one can predict how it will develop. A person who has spent his life with contempt for legitimate processes, who has been abandoned by the twists and turns of society, may find that he does have a place in the world.

These potential benefits are rarely discussed and their potential hardly developed. The debate around the prisoners’ right to vote is itself indicative of the contempt that can be fostered for a group that is politically dispossessed. The vote will change the terms of the debate. Nationally, it will help to hold government to account for the immeasurable waste of human life and purpose that comes with imprisonment. Locally, it forces politicians to face the daily reality of prisons and prisoners. And for society, it holds out the hope of reclaiming those who have until now been cast aside. What, then, is there to lose?

Quirks

Although I insist that the research fails to reveal significant psychological damage from long-term imprisonment, this doesn't mean that we don't develop our little quirks.

Whilst we are often allowed to buy a duvet, I stick to prison sheets. Only sheets have an edge that is sharp, and as I fall asleep I run this edge between my toes. It keeps me happy...

Famously, I eschew drinking from cups or mugs. As I drink around three litres of tea or coffee a day, drinking out of a mug would see me forever hopping up and down to make more. Instead, I use a plastic one-litre water jug. As these are no longer issued to us, I guard my two and take them with me on transfers. Why two? One is for everyday use, and is never scrubbed clean. On the same theory that holds that teapots shouldn't have the tannin scrubbed out lest it affects flavour, so my jug long ago ceased to be transparent. It is brown-black, and looks disgusting. The other jug is a clean one, saved for use should royalty ever pop in for tea.

And I cannot sleep in silence. The TV or radio must be on in the background, preferably News 24 or the World Service, in order for me to get a decent night’s sleep.

As quirks go, these aren't too bad after thirty years, don't you think?

A Hoot

We were on evening association - our recreation time - loitering around a window on the top landing. Talking balls, probably, when an owl flitted out of the darkness, through the window, and perched on the radiator.

What do you do...? It just sat there, bobbing its head and looking at us. It didn't seem overly impressed or interested. Not one to miss an opportunity. Bob held out his arm. The owl hopped on - and gripped tight. Bob squealed like a girl and shooed the owl off; wrapping his arm in a towel, he invited it back on.

This was a very strange owl, utterly content to allow us to stroke it and generally oh-and-ah. We were allowed budgies, so why not an owl? A fair reasoning, which saw us take the owl into a cell.

Only then did it spread its wings. In a tiny cell, what seemed to be a smallish bird transformed into a flippin' eagle, and no longer a happy one at that. It began to flap around the cell -six foot square, already crowded with four convicts, and it seemed on the verge of panic.

Which is exactly when it decided to land on my head. If you have never handled an owl, you won't appreciate the size and sharpness of their talons. Neither did I until that moment, when its weight settled on top of my head and several razor sharp claws dug into my forehead and scalp. "For God's sake, don't panic it".

In the end, we calmed it down and it was collected by the RSPB. It was an interesting experience, and it went far better than other encounters with wildlife in prison. A couple of years ago, a screw at Erlestoke got savaged by a badger!