Just watching “Newsnight” with Paxo. He’s at HM Prison High Down in Surrey. The prison handles mainly prisoners serving short sentences. He is there with Ken Clark talking about the effectiveness (or otherwise) of those prison sentences. On comes Peter Dawson, the prison Governor, who is asked what has been the effect on the prisoners of the short sentences that many of them serve. His reply: “Sending someone to prison always does harm to the person in prison. My job is to mitigate the harm is does to the person in prison and to their family”
And there’s me thinking that it is his job to keep them securely locked up, perhaps encourage them to sew a few mailbags and just ensure they are adequately fed and watered, but he made no mention of those responsibilities. No wonder prisons are so expensive to run if governors believe their role in life is “to mitigate the harm” that prison does to his charges.
I thought the idea of a prison was to inflict a bit of harm the miscreants with whom they deal. Or am I being a bit naive?
Prison should try to reform the inmates so that they will go out and commit no more crime. Today, a prisoner is as likely to leave with a drug addiction, gained while inside, as he is to go on to a better life
The more you harm already damaged people the worse those people's personalities will become. Is that really such a great idea, since 'nice' people don't mug rape or murder anyone? The prime aim of prison SHOULD be to create an individual who will reintegrate into society and never end up there again... now THAT would be a success- prisons which merely denigrate, punish and harm those inside are the creation of very seriously disturbed criminals indeed.
IMO no, you're not being naïve, just a bit narrow-minded.
I thought the primary role of the punitive system was 'correction' not revenge. ie to put errant people back into society as socially acceptable(/accepting ?) upstanding citizens.
To quote (and I appreciate it's just a film) Shawshank Redemption:
"The funny thing is, on the outside I was an honest man, straight as an arrow. I had to come to prison to be a crook".
Maybe this is the sort of situation Mr Dawson was referring to.
I think the idea that prisons should be to punish went out with the cat o' nine tails. Many prisoners have mental health problems but there is nowhere else for them. Other's have addiction problems. The levels of illiteracy are very high and lots of prisoners have not the skills to ever make them employable.
Some might say that prisons were human dustbins and their function is to hold the casualties of our society.
Violent criminals should be locked up to protect the public. But the majority of prisoners are not violent and quickly get into a cycle of offending, prison, release, unemployment, reoffending....
yes you are being niaive - or at least simplistic.
It has various purposes depending on the offender.
Some offenders are too dangerous to be allowed on the streets that's why we have indefinate sentences now.
In some cases it may act as a deterrant - normally short sentences for first or second time offenders.
There is the retribution purpose although those offended against will always want harsher sentences.
And there is the reassurance of those trembling under their beds in mortal fear of crime (seem to be a lot of those on AB) Again these people will never be satisfied until every shoplifter has been given a 30 year old sentence.
flip_flop - "The prime aim of prison should be to punish - rehabilitation, whilst important, is secondary. "
I agree flip_flop. Anyone here who does not agree that prison should be a punishment first and foremost has obviously not been the victim of a mugging, burglary etc etc.
You just did crissa- you said 'this country's penal system is a joke'
and getting back to what the 'hang em high' brigade- how many of you have ever actually been inside a prison- either as an inmate or a visitor- or is it all just the alarmist claptrap that the Daily Mail churns out that makes you so narrow and blinkered when you assume it's like Butlins?