I spent a good chunk of the afternoon today discussing with a colleague
whether the aim of prison is to punish or rehabilitate. Bit of an old chestnut I
know, but I’ve spent the last fourteen months focused solely on being selfless
so having an opinion to share feels a little strange. Besides which I think it’s
true that (facts and data aside) people instinctively incline to a liberal or
conservative standpoint - so it was interesting to see that confirmed in our
talk. Neither of us had facts to hand to support our inclinations but argued for
them passionately. He argued that prison serves to punish people for their
crimes. He felt the criminal justice system should provide retribution to
victims and their families. Bit draconian I thought – no more sophisticated than
an eye for an eye. I on the other hand felt that prison ought aim to
rehabilitate prisoners to prevent them offending again. This means providing a
nurturing environment in which prisoners can gain new skills blah blah blah. It is an old chestnut indeed. In fact it emerged that neither of our
opinions was so simplistic. Before the end of the discussion we’d agreed that
punishment and rehabilitation are both necessary to an effective prison system.
It’s simply that our opposing instincts meant it took time to unearth the nuance
in our perspectives. Nothing was really accomplished (is anything ever
accomplished in these things?) but it felt good to have established shared
ground nonetheless.
The discussion though spurred me this evening to find out how the Coalition
government is tackling the prison issue at the moment. It so happened that
prisons minister Crispin Blunt was being interviewed on radio station London’s
Biggest Conversation (I’d never heard of it but immediately took a liking) and
so provided ample chance to learn the state of things. To my pleasure and
surprise the Tory minister placed the emphasis solely on rehabilitation.
Presently the justice department is running a pilot in Peterborough to place
short term offenders into work schemes the moment their sentences end in order
to help them reintegrate. I enjoyed hearing this first because it’s nice to hear
one’s opinion reaffirmed by someone in authority and second because it seemed
weirdly progressive for a conservative. Blunt referred to the Tough on Crime
stance of the last decade as outright stupid and promised to attempt such novel
things as listen to experts in forming policy. I was quite impressed.
Of course I’m not so naive as to take a politician at his word. For
instance I saw an interview with foreign minister William Hague at the weekend
and he seemed reasonable and likeable. But then I happened across an article in
Private Eye this evening mentioning that Hague accepted a lavish hotel room in
Bahrain from the Royal Family there. Bahrain is hardly known for its political
freedoms - but Hague seems content to accept luxuries from its despot government
at the same time as discussing freedom and justice in Libya. So these things are
never simple. Unfortunately I haven’t had time to research the Labour response
to Crispin Blunt’s plans for the prison system so I don’t know if he’s
presenting a one-sided version of the argument. Doubtless there’s something to
criticise. But it makes me think: should I be seeking critical opinions of Blunt
in order to be better informed? Do I have an obligation to do so? How do I
benefit from the effort? To some extent I enjoy the process (I love love love
research and work since finishing my master’s degree has been laughably simple)
but would this make me a better citizen? I’m unlikely to use the knowledge to
protest the coalition. I might make a better informed decision in the
occasional election but – ultimately – the only benefit might be being better
eqipped to out-debate the right-wing colleagues at work. In that light it seems
sort of futile.
