“[prison]rather drastic form of crime prevention”
Andrew Bridges
I know we are in something of an economic mess in this country, but to open the cell doors prematurely on economic grounds sounds like something out of The Simpsons. I do not wish to compare Mr Bridges to “Diamond” Joe Quimby, the mayor of Springfield, but he does invite the comparison through such antics.
Let us see what else could be achieved by following the same logic used by Mr Bridges, but in other areas of the public sector. Let us take the NHS for instance. Look at all those expensive drugs that could be denied people. Of course many people will die, while others suffer in agony, but expensive drugs seem a rather drastic way of health protection anyway – and think of the money saved!
Or let us apply Mr Bridges’ logic to education. Do we really need teachers when we have the internet? Once more, just think of the money we can save.
ON THE SUBJECT OF PRISON, where Mr Bridges’ addressed his arguments for minimal sentencing; let us examine his Alice in Wonderland sagacity.
For a start no politician will agree with his suggestions simply because they are elected politicians accountable (unlike the chief inspector of probation) to the people. I cannot even imagine a Liberal Democrat in this coalition government succumbing to Mr Bridges’ wiles, even if they have sympathy with his point of view.
Perhaps this was an attempt by Mr Bridges to win over such bedfellows from the liberal wing of this coalition? If so it was naive in the extreme.
The trouble with people like Andrew Bridges is that they live in middle class areas of the country rather than the inner-cities whose citizens are invariably the victims of the minimum sentencing he tells us will save the public purse many millions of pounds.
Andrew Bridges acknowledges that prison does work. His quibble appears to be about the price. The more I read about this man’s wish to reduce public expenditure, the more convinced I am that he is a closet extreme right-wing Tory on budgetary restraint, but remains a social liberal on sentencing.
Prison does work, but not for the hardened criminal who sees the current arrangements within our penal system somewhat better than they receive on the outside. I have no doubt that for people of a liberal persuasion (like our chief inspector of probation) prison would be unbearable and the level of reoffending amongst such a group would be zero.
But prison conditions for the hardened internee are a doddle. They know they are protected by human rights law and can make for themselves a comfortable nest for the duration of their minimal sentence, which overcrowding will eventually, if Mr Bridges has his way, lead to their release. Why should prisoners reform their behaviour when faced with such liberal conditions?
OUR PRISON POPULATION have been made well aware of their human rights by their lawyers: as every new edict is passed on from the European Commissioners in Brussels; so their British lawyers have passed them on to their client’s serving time within our prison system.
For those of us who seek justice on behalf of the victims of crime, the future indeed appears bleak. There will be evermore victims if Mr Bridges’ suggestions are taken up; but we are told that by this formula, we must accept the deaths of our loved ones in order to save money.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Such madness is beyond rational comprehension . But it seems not beyond the comprehension of our so-called professionals who sit comfortably in their offices at great public expense overseeing such injustices in the “public interest”.
Andrew Bridges, if his ideas are implemented, will be responsible for many criminal offences within the community. Bridges is a liberal who would stand out against any cuts within the NHS, but would tolerate more victims of criminal behaviour being sent into our hospitals… in order to save money?
No comments:
Post a Comment