Critically assess the notion; 'Privatising Prisons is 'Morally Wrong''
Critically assess the notion; 'Privatising Prisons is 'Morally Wrong''
By, Mr Charanjit Landa
6 December 2002
Introduction
The following piece of written work aims to critique the notion that; privatisation of prisons is morally wrong. The piece it self is not long enough to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the whole moral argument, of which there are many facets, this written work aims to provide an overview of the main points.
The area is controversial, it has been described by politicians as 'morally repugnant'1. There has always been and always will be differing attitudes towards private prisons, labellised as commercialisation or 'cashing in' on a very profitable market, I will consider this amongst other issues further.
I feel it axiomatic to consider the arguments for and against privatisation, penal policy, reform and political attitude and how the moral ground provides justification against privatisation. As well as this I will also consider the human rights aspect to the privatisation argument.
I will go on to look at the aspect that the government should be responsible for penal punishment and should bear the responsibility for standards and treatment of prisoners.
Finally I will also consider throughout if there is an alternative to prisons and privatisation of, and whether the moral argument really holds any weight at all.
First and foremost it is important to define moral, a word that itself is a living instrument of the English language, the use of which has changed over the centuries, with society and the law of the country. Moral is defined in the oxford concise dictionary2 as 'concerned with; goodness or badness or human character or behaviour; or with distinction between right and wrong; accepted rules and standards of human behaviour; a conforming to accepted standards of general conduct'.
Secondly, the word wrong in its proper definition is 'contrary to the law of morality; less or least desirable'3, these terms seem to suggest that it is not in itself an argument that prison privatisation is in itself the aspect that society is concerned with, it is the age old issue of profiteering from the misfortune of others, aggravated by the political agendum to stay in office another term and the denotation of the word privatisation is symbolic of oppressive non consensual change.
Thus the term 'morally wrong' seems to suggest a set of moral laws and principles to which society must abide, and the main purpose of the penal system is to protect society from individuals whom deviate from these moral rules through punishment the most popular of which is incarceration4,5. The social system and attitudes of society have changed, any political party guarding their own political future must for relective reasons, provide a regulatory framework of the wider views of society as a whole.
The whole moral argument is partly based on, the 'passing off' of the blame for poor standards, degrading treatment and overcrowding a succinct failure of the present prison model to a non-public, non-governmental organisation, who is not as accountable6 as HM Prison Service7, an organisation whom has as any organisation does, as its foremost aim not the benefit of the incarcerated but the maximum economic efficiency and running of a private sector prison profitably along the lines of established business ethic.
Therefore a possible dilution of governmental control over protection of society and rehabilitation of prisoners, the duty that is deemed by many to be owed to society by any political party in power is seemingly being undermined. Apart from the obvious economic factor, which I will consider later, this may be one of many reasons; many jurisdictions are now returning previously private prisons to the public sector8.
Economics
Economics plays an incredibly large part in the moral denunciation of privatised prisons by society as a whole, as I have mentioned already this is partly due to the social conditions and legal framework within the jurisdiction at any time.
To be seen to profiteering from the penalisation of others is believed to be morally wrong, it always has been, however the private sector does little to refute this claim, as statistics from other jurisdictions prove9, the private prison economy is a fast growing and extremely profitable one.
Compared to other industries, the crime control industry is in a most privileged position. There is no lack of raw material; crime seems to be in endless supply, endless are also the demands for the service, as well as the willingness to pay for the security. The usual industrial questions do not appear, on the contrary, this is an industry seen as cleaning up, removing the unwanted elements from the social system10, and thus to profit from the misery of the incarcerated is deemed to be inhumane.
Then why should prison privatisation be seen as morally wrong, in essence it is partly also the factor that private prisons are not necessarily cheaper or any better than prisons which are run by the public sector, once again statistics show that on average private prisons are only 7 - 8% cheaper to run than there public sector counterparts11. Instead of huge savings, profits of the private prison industry are insurmountable and continue to soar12.
Therefore the benefit is small, not really seen as a benefit at all, the labour government was prepared to tear up its moral opposition to private incarceration on the grounds that a small, private prison sector would cut costs, speed up building new prisons and put pressure on reform of state prisons hamstrung by the prison officers association (POA)13.
This however has not been the case, in some cases the private prisons may be more expensive, once an element for repayment of the capital financing charge is included, this helps advance the moral platform, undermining the privatisation program, economics being the perceived ugly head of capitalism. The benefit from lower costs would have changed societal view on the moral issue, however lack of phenomenal savings results in the exact opposite.
One should bear in mind, that the moral argument is a pinnacle of any supposedly civilised society, however when the question of increase in tax arises, society seems to tighten the purse strings, this in itself has negative externalities.
The argument is round, in order to rehabilitate and provide an educative14 and humane prison environment the public sector is in need of extra finance, a resultant loss of potential power is at the heart of any political party agendum and therefore in absence of increases in tax to support the public sector we find the industry reliant upon private sector funding to provide the financial support and framework required in order to sustain a successful and operative prison service.
The moral argument is outweighed by the prejudicial lack of resources, which in itself has to lead to greater levels of so called community punishment15, a balance will need to be achieved to sustain societal belief within the penal system and rehabilitation/punishment of offenders16.
Finance will no doubt win hands down17, as other countries have shown successful models of privatisation18, successful in the fact not to high levels of incarceration as per the USA but the prison service itself.
Profiteering and Privatisation
It is obvious that profit is a vitiating factor for all private organisations, thus private prison contractors have a vested interest in a higher prison population19, in which they may push for longer sentences as a method of sustaining economic growth, viability and profit.
The moral opposition to this is time immemorial, it is morally wrong that anyone should be able to profiteer from the imprisonment of offenders, equated liberally to profiteering from crimes against supposedly innocent victims. However one should consider, that the victim has profited him or herself through compensation, albeit after being subject to a criminal offence.
One way in which to combat against this would be to introduce not-for-profit prisons, these would probably be very difficult to set up, seeing as though even public prisons in line for privatisation are not being snapped up by the private sector unless they have some viable profitable future20.
There is no theory which; allows justification for profiteering in this ever growing industry, trivialisation of which is a moral objection. However the issue against privatisation is weak, as successful privatised prison models show that regulated profit can lead to increases in services, efficiency, rehabilitation21 and human rights22.
Dilution of Parliamentary Power/Sovereignty and Privatisation
Under the theory of general deterrence it is the threat of punishment that deters people from committing crimes. At the legislative level, Parliament establishes penalties to threaten those who might contemplate committing a crime. At the sentencing level, offenders are punished as ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
There is no theory which; allows justification for profiteering in this ever growing industry, trivialisation of which is a moral objection. However the issue against privatisation is weak, as successful privatised prison models show that regulated profit can lead to increases in services, efficiency, rehabilitation21 and human rights22.
Dilution of Parliamentary Power/Sovereignty and Privatisation
Under the theory of general deterrence it is the threat of punishment that deters people from committing crimes. At the legislative level, Parliament establishes penalties to threaten those who might contemplate committing a crime. At the sentencing level, offenders are punished as a deterrence to discouraged others committing crimes.
Thus, punishment is held up as an example of what will happen to those who engage in similar activities. When a specific crime is on the increase or has attracted much publicity, then exemplary sentence may be imposed to attempt to prevent that particular crime. It is perceived the weaponry of the crown to segregate and punish criminals.
The moral argument on this point is one which; lacks sustenance, it is perceived that through privatisation parliament is giving up its sovereignty (as the unwillingness towards the EU shows, sovereignty is regarded as the only truly British characteristic remaining in today's diverse British community). In return this dilution blurs the distinction of law and enforcement, instead of punishing offenders they will become mere statistics and tools, which accommodate profit.
This so called dilution is also removing accountability of prisons from the government to private organisations/contractors. As I have earlier discussed are focused on profitability. Society feels the need for governmental accountability (as history shows) and feels that this is the ultimate avenue for complaint that allows for change and moral blameworthiness. Taking accountability away from public bodies merely adds another bureaucratic layer in which you have recourse too.
It is also partly based on the theory that the state itself is deemed to be the great protector and disseminator of punishment for wrongs against society, diluting their power will have negative effects and ultimately take away the deterrent effect of the legislative framework.
One may argue, that people will commit crimes whether or not a more relaxed or stringent approach is adopted; legal frameworks have fairly little or no deteratative effect. Whether or not sovereignty is being diluted or merely delegated is an important consideration.
Although prisons may be privatised, the legal framework is still in operation, more now than ever, new ideas and rehabilitative policies may mean that private prisons are better equipped to deal with the incarcerated more adequately and on a more professional basis, than is the current situation.
Human Rights, Morals and Privatisation
One aspect, which seems to have been amalgamated with other aspects of the moral argument, is one of human rights. As statistics show that the prison population in England and Wales has risen from around 46,000 in 1991 to around 71,000 in 200123.
That's 71,000 offenders in only 140 establishments, leading to overcrowding, over budgeting and vast degradation of living standard, a possible breach of Art 324.
Just think if the 175,000 offenders on supervision orders were incarcerated the effect would be catastrophic on the prison system and unsustainable. Therefore consideration should be given to an opportunity that is available in the guise of a modern privatised prison service, with benefits resultant from rehabilitative, educative programs.
Surely the human rights25 abuses occurring within the prison service today are the most important of issues and objections advanced by the moral argument itself26. Basic infringements of human rights may well be deemed as the forefront of any moral argument. The awareness of human rights has been extenuated by the recent breaches by the USA (a country with one of the worlds largest private prison population) with regards to the supposed terrorist being subjected to inhumane and degrading treatment27.
Further breaches include the policy of removing toddlers from their mothers in prison once they reach the age of 18 months this was seen as "a clear breach of the right to respect for family life"28 under Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights29, and the case of Q and P is now proceeding through the courts.
The case highlights the lack of responsiveness by the prison service to human rights issues within public sector prisons, thus the only way to bring about change is through radicalism.
It may be apparent that there are only three ways in which to rectify human rights abuses within the prison service; that is to increase expenditure and build more public sector prisons with new policy facilitation and prevention of over crowding or degradation of standard in compliance with human rights.
The second is to provide a legislative framework in which offenders are punished in other ways and not through incarceration or deprivation of ones liberty30. The third being the most obvious, to introduce private prisons on a more community like basis, this would be to have a 'campus based' approach where there would be normal facilities within a confined perimeter, this idea is one which is most favoured by politicians, and not by the moralists of society31.
Is it then not arguable, that it is the moral duty of society to rehabilitate offenders, so that on release they can integrate back into normative life, not to disenfranchise them from society so that they cannot function properly32, the only way to achieve this is to facilitate a private prison sector, however abuses may occur in private prisons unless a legislative framework is provided33.
Is it not morally wrong to prevent rehabilitation and instead to disrespect human life through a forcibly kept public prison sector, a breach of Art 334.
The whole purpose of penal systems has changed, from punishment to rehabilitation and prevention of crime over the last 300 years35. Then to allow the continuation of potential human rights abuses is morally wrong in itself.
Dehumanisation as a result of Privatisation
Another facet to the moral argument is that of dehumanisation, firstly it is important to establish what dehumanisation actually is; it is defined in the oxford concise as, 'to deprive of human characteristics'36, and 'make impersonal and machine like', this is another important aspect to the moral argument, its origins are certainly not historical, and are somewhat organic to current day penal reform.
To privatise an industry, which is deemed to be protecting society by segregating offenders by incarceration should remain solely within the public sector, reason being blameworthiness, the offender will risk being disenfranchised from connecting his criminality with punishment by the crown (society/government), with his criminality and being punished by a private sector organisation.
This affects the criminal psyche, believing that he/she will no longer be punished by the crown/society, and instead will be imprisoned by a private organisation, it mars the link with detrimental effect, resulting in crime itself being deemed not as criminal behaviour towards society being punished by society but 'commercial punishment'.
This produces a round about effect, which may lead to increases in criminal behaviour and allow the offender to believe that he or she has in some way 'gotten away with it', the link is important as it provides tangible realisation to the offender that he/she is being punished by society, (albeit under the name of the crown) for a wrong committed against them.
It is important to mention that although prisons may be privatised, punishments will not, the judiciary and legislature will remain wholly independent. It has been suggested that privatisation may lead to a powerful lobbying group for penal reform; which may abdicate reform or longer sentences, I will consider this later.
Further more as the governmental or societal aspect is diluted if not totally lost, there then arises the difficulty as to the assembly line approach to privatised prisons, they are there for one purpose that is to incarcerate and then release, what happens during incarceration is a matter which I have previously mentioned, privatisation is dehumanising the prison system, it is changing the role from 'punishment' to being one of 'getting people through the system', recent laws such as early release of prisoners for good behaviour to mention one of many show a tendency towards 'processing' offenders as fast as possible37.
This dehumanisation process has been sped up through privatisation, and is deemed morally wrong, the offender should be able to link his crime and punishment to being blameworthy, this in itself advances a moral dilemma on the offender who then may realise the error of his ways, but to take away or dilute that connection may disillusion many as to where and to whom they are responsible. It may also disillusion them as to why they are being punished, being processed through court only to be incarcerated in a private prison complex.
The argument advances many important points and raises important issues, however it has weak foundations, the fact that an integral part of a private prison service is rehabilitation of offenders is not taken into account, it may also enlighten the offender into new ways of thinking through rehabilitation of which the long term benefits include lower rates of reoffending38.
As far as the question of linking of offending to punishment, this is a thing of the past, although offenders realise that they are incarcerated because of a crime they have committed, the link is still very much apparent even though the place in which they are incarcerated is private in nature, it is important that we do not return to the archaic and inequitable days of punishing an offender which inevitably resulted in an individual disenfranchised from society, thus on release he/she had no alternative but to re-offend, as they did not know how to function in normative society.
The whole point of penal systems today is to rehabilitate offenders, a move away from this would be detrimental, the long-term aim being to reduce offending and re-offending.
Dehumanisation of offenders by simply passing them through the system hastily so as to dehumanise them is a valid point, but is not organic to private prisons, it is a generic characteristic of both private and public sector prisons, the penal element to many sentences has somewhat disappeared and what remains is based on a rehabilitative/educative model, which may mean in turn that long prison sentences are not necessary in all circumstances.
The argument warrants the question, is being 'processed' and released early really immoral and dehumanising? It is of no intrinsic or extrinsic value to retain in incarceration any individual whom has been wholly rehabilitated, and whom could benefit more from active communal involvement such as a community order for the remainder of his or her sentence entitlement than to retain him or her at public expense.
Thus it is morally wrong to keep someone in prison where there is no probative value in fact if anything keeping someone incarcerated beyond what is the necessary requirement may have more of a prejudicial effect, in this situation the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative worth, release being the only obvious moral avenue.
I reach on this point the conclusion that private prisons do not necessitate or facilitate dehumanisation, it is a feature; which is generic to both private and public sector prisons.
Privatisation, where does the interest of private prison organisations lie?
Finally I will be considering a facet of the moral argument which I consider to be very important, that the argument that private prison organisations may once fully established, as of yet they are at the fledgling stage, be such a powerful lobbying group that calls for (in their interest) longer sentencing laws, thus increasing profitability, and possibly coercive with enough power to achieve its objective.
As I have previously discussed, the heart of any private organisation is economic profitability/sustainability, as we have seen the private sector refusal to take on HM Prison at Brixton39, thus selecting the best business opportunities, leaving behind some of the worst prisons and ones which probably need the most attention.
Statistics certainly show, that private prison organisations currently operate on a very small but profitable basis with only a small number of private prisons in existence, public sector prisons being predominant, this indicates that the private sector may only bid for prisons in which they see a profitable business opportunity, unlucky for prisons such as Brixton.
In order to ensure moral compliance, the legislature must ensure through a legislative framework or positive coercion that all prisons take full advantage of the privatisation program, this is both ethically and morally wise.
In Conclusion
I have found throughout this assignment that the moral argument has many facets; these are wide ranging and arguably wide reaching. The aspects which I have critiqued; are those which I perceived some of the most important, it is impossible to undertake a through critical analysis of the moral argument within a limited piece of written work.
I have found from my research that society in itself is ever reluctant to adopt new idea's, introduction of which are down to small margins, it is almost certain to ascertain there will always be arguments against reformative change in penal policy, it is an aspect of normative society which is intertwined with one's everyday life.
The moral argument has many important issues, one of which being 'profiteering from penal punishment', this will always be an argument against, simply because, if current penal policy is based upon rehabilitation and human rights, then why should one allow any organisation to profit from it, without consideration of the merits and reinvestment which may be facilitated within the right political/legislative environment this aspect should not be considered on its own.
I have found that many aspects overlap with other arguments encompassed within the moral argument. It is itself a psychogenic product of archaic value which some would argue should be disregarded, however I believe it adopts a modernistic approach, it deals with many issues which would otherwise be shunted under the carpet, if one is allowed to use such an analogy.
It provides us with a humanistic framework, which should be considered/adopted within penal reform mechanisms, it has the core values of any civilised society entrenched within it, the adoption should not be whole, the argument itself as I have mentioned provides many issues that need consideration, a successful approach would be to take the issues, which provide us with a framework, and adopt these in new and innovative ways, to achieve both the objective of society and the legislature/government, which is to reduce crime.
Society is itself governed by many fundamental principles one of which is, the 'an eye for an eye' approach, this does not work statistically, it has no deterrent effect and has no place in a civilised world, the moral argument agrees, it seeks justice and reformation, unfortunately which cannot be achieved through medieval strategies, and which can be more properly achieved through rehabilitation, presently, modern prisons can implement a more stringent program of rehabilitation, privatisation facilitates this.
Although privatisation has its bad points, as does everything, the term itself denotes belligerency; it has attached to it the loss of other 'public' sector industries, railways being one. Public industries that have been privatised do not necessarily provide a rosy picture of privatisation, these feelings attach to any public industries undergoing privatisation. This feeling of discontent can only be revoked through positive action on part of the private organisations, so that society can view privatisation as an organic and generic part of moral society.
I do not believe that privatisation is 'morally repugnant', as I have critiqued it can be a positive policy if supported and facilitated through the correct legislative framework. The moral argument is a useful tool and should be used as such, and not as dictatorial.
Bibliography
Oxford Concise Dictionary, 9th Edition, Edited by; Della Thompson, 2000.
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999
Northern Ireland Report 16. Available at: http://www.nio.gov.uk/press/r/cjp2html/rep16/3_accountability_and_independence.htm
The Herald Newspaper, Robbie Dinwoodie. Available at: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/14-6-19102-0-26-19.html
Nils Christie, Crime Control as Industry, 2002, Routledge: London.
Evening Standard 21/06/1994.
'Justice For All Report', July 2002: HMSO
Flynn N, An introduction to Prisons and Imprisonment, 1999, Winchester: Waterside Press.
Jail Terms: Alan Travis 12/07/2001, Guardian Newspaper. Available at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,520449,00.html
Prison Statistics England and Wales 2000 (2001), London: HMSO.
Human Rights Act 1998.
Human Rights Act 1998; A Practical Guide, Rambert De Mello, 2000: Jordan Publishing Limited.
http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk.
R (on the application of P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1151, [2001] 1 WLR 2002, CA. Available at:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11557125&method=full
Clare Dyer, Removing prison toddlers 'breaches rights', Tuesday May 1, 2001: http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0%2C8150%2C481282%2C00.html
Peter Gould, 'Criminal justice reshaped': BBC News Online 2002,
Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/in_depth/business/2001/ppp/1529488.stm
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Constitutional Law and Human Rights vol. 8 (Reissue).
Juliet Lyon, The last resort, Sunday May 19, 2002: The Observer
Jack Straw commented previously that privatised prisons were morally repugnant, and then went on to brush aside his previous objections against private run prisons to announce plans for further private prisons.
2 Moral /'mar(e)l/ adj. & n. adj 1 a concerned with goodness or badness or human character or behaviour, or with distinction between right and wrong. B concerned with accepted rules and standards of human behaviour. 2 a conforming to accepted standards of general conduct. Oxford Concise Dictionary, 9th Edition, Edited by; Della Thompson, at page 883.
3 Oxford Concise Dictionary, 9th Edition, Edited by; Della Thompson, at page 1619.
4 However political trend shows a willingness to move away from imprisonment, as under the new scheme of reprimands, referral orders and warnings for juveniles. See Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.
5 There are now fewer restraints in perceiving minor transgressions of laws as crimes and their actions as criminals, thus reducing incarceration. Nils Christie, Crime Control as Industry, 2002, Routledge: London
6 Traditionally, a variety of accountability has been thought to be an obligation to explain the bases upon which decisions of a class are made or the bases upon which decisions in an individual case were reached. Such is described as 'explanatory and co-operative' accountability, more recently styled as 'answerability'. In relation to its role in respect of both classes of cases and individual cases, explanatory accountability takes the form of a process whereby the decision-maker may be called to explain an impugned decision to a responsible authority and may canvass the views of other authorities or agencies about certain matters of policy. Explanatory and co-operative accountability, where it is found, is regarded as necessary to monitor the efficacy of discretionary decisions and to properly deal with the consequences of any unsustainable exercise of that discretion. As mentioned accountability of this variety can be regarded also as 'answerability', implying an explanatory and co-operative relationship but not one in which there is any degree of subordination by any party to the relationship. Explanatory and co-operative accountability typically is confined to matters of policy as distinct from individual cases, and can be either proactive or reactive. Proactive explanatory accountability would exist where a prosecution agency canvasses the views of another agency, the public or other interested entities regarding the formulation of a policy. Reactive explanatory accountability would exist where the prosecutor provides to another person or agency an explanation of decisions taken or policies applied. An example of explanatory and co-operative accountability would be the relationship between a prosecution agency and a parliamentary committee where that committee has the power to consider policies of the prosecution agency and perhaps to make recommendations in respect of policy. Effective accountability of any variety contributes to the empowerment of people in the society in which it operates. This is because accountability is recognition that although prosecutors discharge important discretionary powers, they derive those powers from the state, which in turn derives the powers from its people. Effective accountability procedures are recognition that prosecutors are merely custodians of those powers for the people. Equally, however, ineffective accountability or the complete absence of mechanisms for accountability is dangerous within a society, because in such cases there is a harmful presumption that prosecutors are not the custodians of these significant powers, but that they possess them as of right. The dual consequences of such a situation will be disempowerment of the people in that society, and the development of a culture of institutionalised arrogance on the part of the prosecution service. We therefore believe that effective mechanisms for accountability are essential in a liberal democratic society. Northern Ireland Report 16: Available at: http://www.nio.gov.uk/press/r/cjp2html/rep16/3_accountability_and_independence.htm
7 Defined as, 'protects the public and reduces reoffending by detaining suspects on remand pending court appearance, and by detaining convicted criminals post sentencing. Provides healthcare and education for offenders and works to rehabilitate them'. CJS; 'Justice For All Report', July 2002: HMSO.
8 Prison expert tells executive to bar new private jails, The Herald Newspaper, Robbie Dinwoodie. Available at: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/archive/14-6-19102-0-26-19.html
9 Corrections Corporation America reported a profit of over $100 million dollars, in 1993, with its share price rising by 88%. Evening Standard 21/06/1994.
0 Nils Christie, Crime Control as Industry, 2002, Routledge: London
1 Jail Terms: Guardian Newspaper, Alan Travis 12/07/2001. Available at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,520449,00.html
2 Corrections Corporation America reported a profit of over $100 million dollars, in 1993, with its share price rising by 88%. Evening Standard 21/06/1994.
3 Jail Terms: Alan Travis 12/07/2001: Guardian Newspaper. Available at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,520449,00.html
4 Within the theory of deterrence it is possible for punishment to have a more profound subconscious effect on society. The idea of educative deterrence is that by punishment of criminals, the criminals then build up the habit of not breaking the law in society.
5 The CJS; it is proposed that all offenders (apart from serious criminals) sentenced 12 month or over custodial sentences will serve part of their sentences in the community, the community part includes constructive activities and conditions for the offender to follow in the community, 'Justice For All Report', July 2002: HMSO at Para 5.37 and 5.38.
6 Prison should be avoided if possible because it reduces employability, renders significant numbers homeless, exacerbates mental health problems and shatters links with family and friends. For young people in transition from childhood to adulthood, it confirms them in a criminal identity, which, for some, will prove an indelible brand. The last resort: Juliet Lyon, Sunday May 19, 2002: The Observer
7 The Lord Chancellor's Department, which oversees the court system, admits that the public sector can borrow money for capital projects more cheaply than private companies. But it argues that private developers can manage these operations more effectively than the public sector, offsetting the higher financing costs and providing the taxpayer with value for money. But fears have been expressed that this trend will see a growth of centralised courts in major towns and cities, resulting in the closure of many older courts in rural areas. The National Association of Probation Officers warns that could lead to a kind of "supermarket justice" that alienates the public. 'Criminal justice reshaped': By Peter Gould, BBC News Online 2002.
Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/in_depth/business/2001/ppp/1529488.stm
8 Whatever the critics may think, the role of the private sector in the criminal justice system is now substantial, and set to expand - both in the UK and around the world. Britain now has ten prisons run by private companies. Between them they house around six thousand offenders, or about eight per cent of the prison population. Other prisons now at the planning or tendering stage will also be financed, built, and run by private companies. 'Criminal justice reshaped': By Peter Gould, BBC News Online 2002, Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/in_depth/business/2001/ppp/1529488.stm
9 Flynn N. 1999, an introduction to Prisons and Imprisonment, Winchester: Waterside Press.
20 Jail Terms: Alan Travis 12/07/2001, Guardian Newspaper. Available at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,520449,00.html
21 Within the theory of deterrence it is possible for punishment to have a more profound subconscious effect on society. The idea of educative deterrence is that by punishment of criminals, the criminals then build up the habit of not breaking the law in society.
22 The Human Rights Act 1998 will have a great impact on HM Prison Service, as there may be infringements of Art 2, 3 Protocol No.1, 6, 12, 10. However whether any of these actually get to Strasbourg remains to be seen.
23 Prison Statistics England and Wales 2000 (2001), London: HMSO.
24 Right from inhumane and degrading treatment. See also the Human Rights Act 1998.
25 Human Rights Act 1998 A Practical Guide, Rambert De Mello, 2000: Jordan Publishing Limited.
26 http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk.
27 But the recent images from Guantanamo Bay - a base that was, by the way, acquired by an act of imperial aggression in the first place - are a cause of real concern, and not just to the bleeding of heart. The captured men are being handled, not just as if they were all potential suicide bombers (which in theory they are) but also as if they were actual live ammunition. Hooded and blindfolded to the point of sensory deprivation and trussed and manacled into the bargain, they have apparently not even been told where they are. Kept in cages under permanent light, they are being subjected to disorienting treatment, which, if applied to ordinary prisoners-of-war, would rightly provoke widespread outrage. Available at: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11557125&method=full
28 R (on the application of P) v Secretary of State for the Home Department; R (on the application of Q) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] EWCA Civ 1151, [2001] 1 WLR 2002, CA
29 Removing prison toddlers 'breaches rights', Clare Dyer, Tuesday May 1, 2001: http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0%2C8150%2C481282%2C00.html
30 Art 5 The Right to personal liberty, the right to liberty is protected as against state interference by two principles: (1) an individual may do anything that is not prohibited by law; and (2) the state may not interfere with the individual save where the law permits3. It is further protected as against persons by the offence of kidnapping, the writ of habeas corpus and the tort of false imprisonment. A person may be arrested by a warrant issued by a justice of the peace or without a warrant if certain conditions are satisfied. An individual can be detained only for a period of time set out in statute and is afforded certain protections whilst in detention. See: Human Rights act 1998.
31 "In their short history, private prisons have mirrored and even, on occasions, gone beyond the systemic human rights abuses found in the worst of the state sector". 'Criminal justice reshaped': By Peter Gould, BBC News Online 2002,
Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/in_depth/business/2001/ppp/1529488.stm
32 The implications for public safety of prison overcrowding are not fully understood. Of the nearly 71,000 people in custody, only 23 are serving whole life tariffs and will never come out. The rest will be expected to resettle in society having had little, or no, help to do so. Purposeful activity has increased for each prisoner by just ten minutes a day in ten years. Literally millions of additional contact and learning hours provided have simply been mopped up by rising numbers. Prisons are being turned back into human warehouses. The last resort: Juliet Lyon, Sunday May 19, 2002: The Observer
33 "In their short history, private prisons have mirrored and even, on occasions, gone beyond the systemic human rights abuses found in the worst of the state sector". 'Criminal justice reshaped': By Peter Gould, BBC News Online 2002,
Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/in_depth/business/2001/ppp/1529488.stm
34 The prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. See the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Art 3. See also CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS vol. 8(2) (Reissue) para 124.
35 Building new prisons has not helped. Since1995 over 12,000 additional prison places have been provided at a cost of £1.28 billion. In the last ten years, of the 26 new prisons, which have opened, 20 are already overcrowded. The answer must lie elsewhere in sustained, coherent policy aimed at reducing the needless use of imprisonment. The last resort: Juliet Lyon, Sunday May 19, 2002: The Observer
36 Dehumanise /di:hju:menarz/ v.tr ,(also -ise) 1 deprive of human characteristics 2 make impersonal and machine like. Dehumanisation /-zerf(e)n/ n. Oxford Concise Dictionary, 9th Edition, Edited by; Della Thompson, at page 354.
37 The Home Secretary has made it clear that short sentences do little to prevent re-offending, and get in the way of effective rehabilitation with people who have committed more serious crimes. The last resort: Juliet Lyon, Sunday May 19, 2002: The Observer
38 The director general has rejected the bleak 'nothing works' philosophy in favour of a drive to create a decent culture, improve staff morale and focus on preventing re-offending. The last resort: Juliet Lyon, Sunday May 19, 2002: The Observer
39 Jail Terms: Alan Travis 12/07/2001, Guardian Newspaper. Available at: http://society.guardian.co.uk/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,520449,00.html
