It
is widely reported that our prisons are full and the demand for places exceeds
supply. So there are suggestions for new
very large ones which take thousands who can be dealt with allegedly more
effectively and what is called humanely and with the advantage of major
reductions of cost per head.
At
the same time there is widespread and perhaps justified concern over the
leniency in sentencing in many cases. To
this should be added large numbers of cases which are not brought to court but
dealt with by cautions or warnings. Some
offenders seem to rack up an astonishing number of offences with no custodial
sentence being applied.
But
the media and the net are now awash with demands to bang up and for a very long
time persons engaged in activities for which they were once praised and admired
by those who now decry them. They are
bankers and other financiers and those who were tasked with managing the
National Health Service.
The
one has lost billions, perhaps trillions in money the other thousands of
patients who might have been saved and perhaps tens of thousands damaged beyond
repair. They are not alone. The Supreme Court has said that the families
of lost soldiers can go to court.
The
leading cases here are men sent into battle without the equipment they might
have had. The feeling is that there is a
common thread to all these disasters and that is alleged criminal conduct of
those in charge. There are a number of
questions at present about the way our defence contracts are handled.
It
is perverse that the rights legislation, intended to protect privacy is said to
have been a useful tool to ensure information could not get out, those
responsible could not be identified to respect the rights of those they killed
and those who objected and tried to call attention to the issues could be fired
or subject to very rough handling.
The
puzzle is even greater. For example in
recent decades there has been a huge reduction in hospital and allied
facilities for those with severe mental conditions, For them "care in the community"
was to be the answer. When it came to
priorities it was their fate that this category rated low for those engaged in
providing public and complex medical services.
The
upshot of this is that large numbers found themselves in trouble and packed off
to prison where they neither received care or much support from the community
they then found themselves in. A number
have found themselves in and out of prison.
Others are numbered among the homeless and other floating people always
on the verge of breaking the law either by accident or design.
In
"The Guardian" on Thursday 20th June, Joris Luyendijk pointed out
that the problem with controlling the banks and allied services was that within
what were supposed to be managed organisations those put in charge were not in
charge but simply holding the ring to what amounted to badly run franchise
operations. Equally, managerialism
applied to the NHS has had much the same effect.
In
short the business of who is a criminal and therefore ought to be in prison has
gone chaotic both at government and institutional levels of all kinds. In the past in other times and in other
places when this has happened other solutions have been attempted. In the 18th and 19th Centuries Century
Britain went in for hanging and transportation.
Other
regimes with differing forms of government and control went in for other
methods. At the moment in the UK our
contraction of defence services, couple with a good many former troops with
limited futures means that there are a lot of locations available with all
sorts of potential.
When
will someone come up with the idea of big facilities with a wide brief to pack
all and sundry of the difficult cases who are at the margins? There many places to turn over to this
function.
Welcome
to the Catterick Gulag or the Bovingdon Labour Camp?
No comments:
Post a Comment