Yes, jails should be tough. But evil places of torture?
I think prisons should be harsh, austere places where wrongdoers work hard to pay for their keep, to make restitution to their victims, and to save for their release.
If only we had such prisons, instead of the squalid, disorderly warehouses we do have, our streets would be calmer and safer, and many would never be tempted into crime.
That is why I also believe in proper justice, fair trials and the presumption of innocence. Nobody should go inside unless we are very sure he deserves it. And I think that the punishment in jail should be imposed by the authorities on our behalf, not by the prisoners.
It would be easy for me to join other commentators in laughing at the miseries inflicted in prison on those who are despised even by the 'normal' criminals, though quite why we should applaud the cruelty of heartless robbers and men of violence, I do not know.
But I do not join in. I fear that a growing number of innocents are in jail because it is easier to convict them than it is to arrest, let alone to convict, violent brutes and professional thieves who can and do frighten witnesses into silence.
And even the guilty, including the very worst offenders, should be punished in an orderly, measured and limited fashion, according to law, not driven into suicidal misery by lawless persecution, with no hope of an end to it.
So please be kind enough to read what follows (though not while you are having breakfast) and ask yourselves if this is what you want happening in your name, least of all to an innocent person.
I am unconvinced that this man is guilty of the dreadful crime alleged against him – a rape supposedly inflicted on his own stepdaughter, mysteriously 'remembered' many years later after a bitter family row about her drug abuse, with no evidence but one person's word against another.
Two members of the jury were likewise unconvinced of his guilt which, in better days, would have been enough to prevent his conviction. His wife and his employer, also, think the charge a nonsense.
It makes no difference. He now faces seven years in segregated units, supposedly to save him from violent attacks.
His wife describes his life: 'Food is invariably contaminated and inedible – urine in mushy peas and mashed potatoes, semen in rice pudding and custard, bleach in boiled potatoes, dirt, filth and hair in rice, sputum and faeces in everything.
My husband is frightened that he may contract hepatitis or HIV...verbal abuse is constant... physical attack only a matter of time...help and advice non-existent...clothes, bed-linen and towels are again contaminated...there are piles of faeces in the communal showers.'
Yes, I know I'm supposed to be Right-wing. And, do you know something? I really am.
The liberals will still think I'm a racist, sexist homophobe and xenophobe, even after I've written this.
But that doesn't mean I can ignore this sort of thing, let alone laugh about it. It's evil, wrong and a scandal, however Right-wing you may be.
3 comments:
Well he makes a good point. The trouble is there is no wrong with the Liberal aproach or the Right-wing way. Both serve to solve a problem, the intention is the same.
The trouble with all things is the will of the individual not the system.
If we had trial without jury the man in question most likely would still be free. A jury can be biased because of the the jury members own feelings. Yet, without a jury, are we sure a person is being given the justice they are intitled to.
If Brown goes hard line then Cameron goes soft, you get the idea. Yet I cannot help but think the Liberal think tanks are going to far.
So not to be on the fence like a good ole Liberal, I support the right-wing way.
ID cards, 42 days, trial without jury and national service. All unemployed made to work for the council. Ban all religions from having an influence on politics.
Thats a start. Wonder how many people think the same? More than we know!
Powerful piece, John. What are the chances of a fair trial though? I fear prison far more than physical violence and the latter I'm not too keen on.
James: I too think it is a powerful piece, unlike the normal ranting and raving associated with Peter Hitchens. Still, I think prisons are harsh and austere places. I am in favour of prisoners doing a fair days work for a fair days pay. However, I do not support the view that they should pay for their keep because the cost should be met by those prepared to inflict loss of liberty. I think that the victims get their restitution when the sentence of custody is imposed, so I am against adding the financial penalty. But, I support the idea that a third of the weekly wage should be saved and/or go toward the upkeep of their families whilst they are in custody.
Post a Comment