UK Bans Sending Books To Prisoners 220
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes: "Alan Travis and Mark Tran report in The Guardian that new rules introduced by the justice secretary in the UK ban anyone sending in books to prisoners It's part of a new earned-incentives and privileges scheme, which allows better-behaved prisoners to get better access to funds to buy their own books. But members of Britain's literary establishment have combined to condemn Justice Secretary Chris Grayling's ban on sending books to prisoners. 'While we understand that prisons must be able to apply incentives to reward good behavior by prisoners, we do not believe that education and reading should be part of that policy,' says a letter signed by more than 80 leading authors. 'Books represent a lifeline behind bars, a way of nourishing the mind and filling the many hours that prisoners spend locked in their cells. In an environment with no internet access and only limited library facilities, books become all the more important.' Prime Minister David Cameron's official spokesman says the prime minister backs the ban on receiving books and entirely supports Grayling, whose department imposed the ban to preserve a rigid system of rewards and punishments for prisoners and said there was no need for prisoners to be sent books as prisoners could borrow from prison libraries and keep some reading material in their cells. However a former prisoner told the Guardian that although libraries existed, access could be severely restricted, particularly in closed prisons. 'I've been in places where prisoners only get 20 minutes a week to visit the library and change books.'"
Back to the good ol' times... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Please, sir, I want some more"
That's "may I have some more".
/whips out cane.
You insolent little whelp, I'll teach you some respect for the Queens English.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, heaven forbid we should end up with well-read ex-cons. They'll be having ideas above their stations.
Re:Oh well. (Score:5, Informative)
Just the part the limits a way for people to sneak drugs and all kinds of shit in.
Ignore the minister's political excuses, and look at the complete set of changes in rules. They are here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/... [www.gov.uk]
As you see, they are all about the restriction of privileges. The ministers comment about searching parcels for drugs is just a red herring. A lie. You should have been able to tell - his lips moved.
The problem that has been highlighted is that reading should not be considered to be a privilege, but part of rehabilitation.
Re: (Score:2)
mind you, it depends on the book... some celebs' autobiographies could be considered part of the punishment!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaaand we have the real reason for the ban.
Re: (Score:3)
For sure, recidivism of ex-cons is high. And the number of prisoners that actively want to improve their minds is probably a minority. But those aren't the relevant issues. The question is: for those that do want books, which will produce the lower recidivism rate: letting them have the books, or denying them the books.
Re: (Score:2)
Fill in the blanks:
An __ _______ (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum __ _______, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the fact is they can help finance their costs by mandating their earned books silo. I think there is likely to be some sort of cost structure planning this was intended to help bolster.
England != UK (Score:5, Informative)
Re:England != UK (Score:4, Insightful)
I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot. England & Wales does not equal the UK. This ban does not apply to Scotland where the prison service is a devolved body. Sending books to prisoners is only banned in PART of the UK.
I was just about to post an almost identical comment when I saw yours.
If Alabama does something completely ridiculous in its penal system no-one says that 'the US is doing this...' For US readers, it may be helpful for you to think of England as the UK's Alabama. In the south, and governed by ignorant, prejudiced and reactionary people.
Re: (Score:2)
They usually do on slashdot then go on to tie it to somehow tie it to corporations and big business.
Re: (Score:2)
Outside the US? Yeah, they do, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
begrudge education (Score:3)
Re:begrudge education (Score:5, Insightful)
So, your proposal is that they reduce the Education budget by 95% or so?
A quick Google shows that the UK Education budget is ~88 billion Pounds, their Prison budget is ~4 billion Pounds.
Now, perhaps that was really a dig at the USA, and so the UK budgets are meaningless...
Of course, US total Education spending is on the order of one trillion Dollars (including Department of Education, which is a whopping $53 billion of that), while the total spent on prisons (including such off(prison)-budget items as pensions for guards) is ~40 billion Dollars.
Which would again suggest you're in favour of lowering Education budgets in the States by ~95% (more like 96%, but the symmetry is nice).
In other words, can we ditch that tired old trope? It only works because most everyone is ignorant, and most everyone likes to exaggerate for effect, and it gets old real fast once you start googling the numbers....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, because you're the one who made the comparison without understanding the order of magnitude difference in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
The OP did not state it very well, but it would appear that he has in mind the fact that the cost of keeping a person in prison is more than the cost of sending them to college, year for year.
Of course with the school age population of Great Britain (which does not count college age people) being about 18% of the total, and its prison population amounting to 0.14% of the population, a ratio of 130-to-1 it would be incredible for the absolute cost of imprisoning the second to exceed the cost of educating the
Re:begrudge education (Score:4, Insightful)
You are either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreting the point you are refuting. There is an (ofttimes implicit) assumption that the budget is per capita. Since there are 120 students per prisoner in the UK (122 if we count University students), the amount spent per prisoner is drastically more than the amount spent per student.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. However, it seems to me that we should spend more per prisoner, considering that the prison covers all living expenses for prisoners, and third-graders don't need the same level of fortification. I'd like to save money by having fewer prisoners (this applies especially to the US).
You're using the wrong stick. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hannibal Lecter (Score:2)
UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons (Score:5, Informative)
The UK has a problem with Islamic extremist gangs in prisons. Printed material from external well-wishers and visitors is a huge contributory factor. This problem is far, far worse than any right-ring white gangs in US jails.
For example at the high security prison near Evesham, there is a large gang who slash the faces of anyone who refuses to convert to their brand of Islam. This isn't widely acknowledged by the prisons service, but it leaks out through staff such as prison nurses, who have to deal with the end results.
Re:UK has Islamic extremist problem in prisons (Score:5, Informative)
I see the problem of islamic gang(s) that was highlighted at HMP Long Lartin.
The parallels are not only to right-wing white gangs in US jails, but to black and hispanic gangs there. If there's enough inmates feeling that they have a common kinship, then they are quite likely to form a gang, and of course bully those who are not in the gang into conformity with the gangs norms.
The problem there seems to be that the Muslim population has reached 25% in that particular prison, presumably many drawn from the islamic fundamentalists groups.
But I don't see any reference to printed material having any bearing on this. Do you have a citation for that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see how banning books is going to help when the gang is persuading people with knives rather than reading material. Of course for politicians (rather than boots-on-the-ground prison staff and their inmates) it doesn't matter whether it actually is effective, just that it appears to be.
Re: (Score:2)
That is irrelevant, and should be handled by something that doesn't amount to strict thought control and censorship. If the UK wants to call a spade a spade they should just say they are banning texts to prevent ideas from spreading. Maybe good ideas maybe bad ideas but a threat to control none the less.
Sounds more like racist Islamophobia problem (Score:2)
Bedwetting bullshit. If you go to prison, you're going to try and make friends with people like you to keep the resizing of your asshole to a minimum. And there's no shortage of crazy christian proselytizing in prison, or violent gangs of wasps, but ZOMG MOOOSLIMS!
But if you really wa
Seems Really Strange. (Score:2)
Logically people who like to read are far more capable of controlling their behaviour and people who don't like to read are far less capable of controlling their behaviour (it comes with being willing to sit in one place and focusing concentration on a inactive pursuit). So this whole thing makes pretty much no sense at all. Seems much more like an attack on intellectual types to force cooperation not only upon them but on their associates outside of prison. So nothing to do with illegal activity within th
Re: (Score:2)
So books are weapons now?
Re: (Score:3)
Giving prisoners meaningful jobs, that are not punitive - or simply profit centers for for-profit prison sweat-shop factories - is actually a very good idea. Farming is not a career today, but it is a rewarding activity that would be very good for developing discipline and productive behavior. It is odd that you find the idea laughable.
Polititicans outdoing themselves (Score:2)
It's nice to see politicians from other countries trying to set a new standard of idiocy, and making ours in North America look okay by comparison.
This serves no sane purpose whatsoever. Books are good. We *want* people reading more. Yes, even prisoners. What do you want them doing with their time if they're not reading? Nothing better will be done instead.
This is the hair-brained scheme of some morons who got into power and don't have the slightest idea of what they're doing. It will accomplish absolutely
The will only lead (Score:3)
To the prisoners making pencils out of toilet paper and writing their own underground novels, which are then sold for packs of cigarettes.
Look..all they are saying is... (Score:2)
that if a prisoner misbehaves he, or she, may lose their reading privileges for a period of time. How can anyone argue against that completely reasonable policy?
Prisoners get PAPER BOOKS!!?? No fair!!! (Score:2)
Authors? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What if a prisoner wants to program in a VC-funded tech startup?
Look, I don't like the idea of removing their books, but being in prison does prevent you from doing other things. And non-prison jobs are usually one thing it prevents.
Also, access to a computer.
Lick Those Pages (Score:2)
When it's illegal for criminals to get books... (Score:3)
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
No, there is nothing reasonable about it. And, in the UK, as access to legal aid becomes severely reduced and private enterprises are being given contracts to cover all stages of the judicial process (from cop shop through prison management to probation), it's simply turning into a profit-making industry where everyone who lacks the money is milked.
The only useful purpose of prison is to protect society from dangerous individuals while they are being rehabilitated. Denying access to books does not help with this.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
You have just described the current state of affairs in the USA.
The war on drugs produces the raw materials (IE, people to put through the system).
The harvesters (the police) get paid for spotting, cutting down and initial rough processing of the raw materials.
The courts (attorneys and judges) do the separating and grading of the rough cut materials.
City and County lockup (jails) do the fine detailing to turn graded rough cut materials into finished products (real, full fledged prisoners)
They then and sell them to businesses (State and Federal prisons) that need the finished products (slave labor prisoners). Call it a business to business transaction.
State and Federal prisons then use their purchased products (slave labor prisoners) in their various industries (manufacturing of electronics, weapons components for the defense industry, you name it).
After the finished product is used up (released from prison), they are recycled and put back through the process.
Re: (Score:2)
I was with you up until the last two points.
For the prison-industrial complex the prisoners themselves are the final product. The government pays the industry to house them. This is why they lobby for 3-strikes laws that permanently lock up people for non-violent offenses. A life sentence is a guaranteed long-term investment for the industry.
(Also, who would have prisoners construct weapons?)
Re: (Score:2)
The only useful purpose of prison is to protect society from dangerous individuals while they are being rehabilitated.
Ever hear of the concept of punishment of bad people? Prison is not supposed to be a state funded college..
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:4, Insightful)
Prison is also about rehabilitation, or at least it's meant to be.
Whilst a bulky package does carry with it a certain amount of security risk, that's what the guard(s) screening the mail are meant to remove.
This is purely another means of control over an individual which goes beyond what society should be expecting from the penal system.
It serves very little real purpose other than proving a politician can and will do something silly if given half a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! You call this slop? Real slop has got chunks of things in it! This is more like gruel! And this Château le Blanc '68 is supposed to be served slightly chilled! This is room temperature! What do you think we are? Animals?
Re: (Score:2)
Parent and GGP are right, and GP is mistaken, as TFS clearly states. The issue is "a new earned-incentives and privileges scheme", i.e., control.
Not about rehabilitation (Score:2)
Prison is also about rehabilitation, or at least it's meant to be.
Malarkey. I don't think a single serious legal scholar today believes prisons are about rehabilitation.
Prison is about punishment. That's it. It's a way of hurting someone. This serves three purposes--politics, retribution, and disincentivization. Politically, overcriminalization lets politicians swear they're tough on crime. Retributively, prisons punish in order to hurt the person who did something bad. Finally, the fact that they are punishment disincentivizes criminal behavior.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
and at a time when they're going on about
"they" always go on about "massive amounts of drugs".
And it's not "dead easy" to hide drugs in books if the books are searched and tested for residue, which they will be anyway.
And, no, you can't send prisoners arbitrary amounts of money to buy anything they want. Clearly. Then a rich prisoner could have whatever they wanted.
And prisoners do not need to be grateful for anything - especially not in a society which only provides access to justice to the rich, and which imprisons people for things like TV licence evasion.
And punishing people for the sake of punishing them is pure, ineffective sadism.
And digital copy? For the WiFi and laptops you think they get to use from their beds? Are you high?
Finally, it's way more important for prisoners to be able to occupy their minds to their fullest extent than it is to stop them taking drugs. Although you might want to take a little less of what you are taking.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to think that scarcity is the only reason why people steal.
Re: (Score:2)
Case in point: Prison guards find mobile phone in hollowed out Weetabix [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
It's not "big bulky packages", it's any packages. And it's part of a raft of prison rule changes under the heading of privileges. So the minister's claim that it's about hidden drugs is simply untrue.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Prison as a punishment simply does not work. It has been shown repeatedly that it doesn't work, both generally (that negative reinforcement sucks), and that that specific case does not work.
The only reasonable goal of a prison is protection of society.
Re: (Score:2)
All we know is that prison doesn't deter the people who end up there. It's possible that prison is the reason why so many law-abiding people are law-abiding.
Justice has to be *seen* to be done, or people will stop believing in it.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
For many crimes, punishment is not really required. For example, if a person is in prison for drug possession and is rehabilitated, while should punishment matter.
Also, emphasis on punishment can actually hurt society as a whole. If a person is not already animal when he goes into prison, he will be when he gets out.
I knew that the US criminal justice system was screwed up. It's pretty sad that europe is headed that way too.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, if a person is in prison for drug possession and is rehabilitated, while should punishment matter.
Why should rehabilitation matter? That person shouldn't be in prison in the first place. They didn't do anything to justify locking them up as a proportional punishment, and they don't pose the imminent threat of irreparable harm necessary to justify a preemptive act of defense. They didn't even cause anyone harm for which they would need to pay restitution.
The thing about punishment is that it isn't so much that the person should be punished as it is that they shouldn't be able to appeal to the State for p
Re: (Score:2)
For many crimes, punishment is not really required. For example, if a person is in prison for drug possession and is rehabilitated, while should punishment matter.
Also, emphasis on punishment can actually hurt society as a whole. If a person is not already animal when he goes into prison, he will be when he gets out.
I knew that the US criminal justice system was screwed up. It's pretty sad that europe is headed that way too.
I agree with your point as a whole but drug possession is a really bad example. Someone who uses drugs is rarely in need of rehabilitation and never in need of punishment. For those who are so far gone they need drug rehab, a prison is the worst place to get it. This is why in Australia, drug possession is a minor offence that attracts a fine and almost never jail time.
But, whilst punishment should never be the main goal of prisons, punishment is a form of rehabilitation. The start of rehabilitating a cr
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that "punishment" should not in itself be a goal at all. Rehabilitation and protection of members of society should be the only two goals.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
Who put you there? Why are you and all these other people in there? Are you going to end up coming back here again? Why didn't we just shoot you the moment the judge struck the gavel? Is a prison supposed to have more functions than appeasing Daily Mail readers with petty acts of vindictiveness?
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:4, Interesting)
Criminal sentences have 3 objectives. Rehabilitation, retribution and deterrence.
Both left and right agree on the importance of deterrence. But the right tend to believe that retribution is the second most important function. Whilst the left believe rehabilitation is.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a 4th, protecting society by removing dangerous individuals from society.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
That comes under the category of deterrence.
Huh? How is "protecting society" a punishment?
It's a consequence of being in prison, which itself is the punishment. Violent criminals aren't deterred by the threat of "protecting society", they're deterred by the threat of being locked up.
If criminals were really all that deterred by the threat of being locked up. Or tormented. Or killed, then crime would have been ended the first time a prisoner was punished.
Criminals don't think that way. Even when the penalties involve being hanged, drawn and quartered, criminals keep committing crimes. They either don't care, or think they won't get caught, or think they will manage to avoid the full force of retribution.
We've had thousands of years and innumerable practical "experiments" that demonstrate beyond doubt that you cannot impose virtue externally, be it by force of arms, force of law, or force of religion. The only thing that really keeps people from committing crimes is if you can convince them not to try at all. And there are strong indications that this might be as much a medical/psychological problem as a strictly moral one.
And one, that, so far we have relatively little success in dealing with on a practical basis.
Punishment may satisfy the vindictive, but to have any moral credibility, the punishment must FOLLOW the crime. And that means that damage has already been done. As a deterrent, it's pretty useless, and if it's too extreme can actually cause criminals to compound their crimes in an attempt to avoid the punishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Violent criminals aren't deterred by the threat of "protecting society", they're deterred by the threat of being locked up.
What, you think your grandma would be a violent criminal if not for the prison system?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the two most important functions are insulation and deterrence. Both rehabilitation and retribution are irrelevant in comparison.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You forgot the main function, insulation, as in insulate society from criminals by keeping them apart.
I didn't forget anything. What you call "insulation" is called incapacitation in criminology, and is a part of deterrence.
Actually the two most important functions are insulation and deterrence. Both rehabilitation and retribution are irrelevant in comparison.
As I said, all agree on the importance of deterrence. The importance of the other two are more subjective.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm afraid you are wrong. There's no such thing in criminology as "insulation", you're making it up as you go along.
Meanwhile:
"Incapacitation is considered by some to be a subset of specific deterrence. Incapacitation aims to prevent future crimes not by rehabilitating the individual but rather from taking away his ability to commit such acts. Under this theory, criminals are put in jail not so that they will learn the consequence of their actions but rather so that while they are there, they will be unable
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sorry my use of technical terms doesn't match your colloquial making-it-up-as-you-go-along expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
And you've now crossed the line into a level of childishness that's not worth pursuing.
Re: (Score:2)
Retribution is a somewhat irrelevant aspect (though not wholly point
Re: (Score:2)
For real criminals, like serial murders, rapists, etc, rehabilitation is usually a wasted effort and the misconception that it can solve the problem prevents the real solution (which is insulation) from being applied.
Re: (Score:2)
And your point of view is exactly what one would expect from someone on the far right. As I mentioned earlier.
http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]
It's an emotional and political view, not one based on evidence of most effective results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've based it on nothing but your feelings and the norms of your politics. Not one iota of evidence informs your point of view.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said
Your right wing political views are not "reality". And asserting that there are "plenty of studies" does not make it so.
, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society.
I've already pointed out to you that there is no dispute about the deterrence (including isolation) aspects of punishment. The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.
Trouble is that outside of your right wing fevered rants, you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offences. Therefore you have to give thoug
Re: (Score:2)
You apparently are out of touch with reality my friend. There are plenty of studies that show exactly what I just said, but they are not even really necessary to understand that an incarcerated or a dead criminal cannot commit crimes against society. A rehabilitated one (whatever that word really means) can and has done it.
A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well. What the word "rehabilitated" really means to most people is that the person in question won't ever do it again. And unlike a dead or incarcerated criminal, may actually be capable of serving society.
As for "plenty of studies that should exactly what I said", the world, and especially the Internet are FULL of plenty of studies that show exactly what people say. That the Earth is flat, that aliens secretly rule us, that everything is 6000 years ol
Re: (Score:2)
The ideological difference is on the retribution/rehabilitation axis.
That dispute happens only in your head, my friend. I couldn't care less about retribution, but rehabilitation and nice prisons are not a good way to exert deterrence.
you cannot execute or give life imprisonment to those who have committed less than the most serious offence.
No, you can't and that is where the deterrence (as in the correct use for the word) comes in. That said, for minor crimes even rehabilitation has a role, I admit, although it is less important by far than deterrence.
Re: (Score:2)
A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well.
Only after he turns into a zombies. You are most likely referring to this possibility, I reckon.
And sure, there are a lot of studies to back anything you want in sociology and other human "sciences". That is why they say very little to corroborate or refute anything. Locating and identifying those few that produce any useful data, and understanding what conclusions can and cannot be taken from this data is generally a very hard job and requires something that most people lack: common sense.
That said
Re: (Score:2)
A dead or incarcerated criminal can and has done it as well.
Only after he turns into a zombies. You are most likely referring to this possibility, I reckon.
And sure, there are a lot of studies to back anything you want in sociology and other human "sciences". That is why they say very little to corroborate or refute anything. Locating and identifying those few that produce any useful data, and understanding what conclusions can and cannot be taken from this data is generally a very hard job and requires something that most people lack: common sense.
That said I do not depend on these studies for my arguments. A bit of logic and common sense is usually enough to show how absurd is your set of beliefs.
I guess "logic and common sense" weren't enough for your keen intellect to distinquish between past tense and present or future tenses.
The generally accepted practical definition for "common sense" is "It matches my predjuices". Common sense, after all, is why people kept insisting that the Earth is flat.
Re: (Score:2)
Sentencing violent criminals to prison that isn't life without parole allows them to get out and commit more crimes. Sentencing an armed robber for five years means that he'll be out in five, and that's plenty soon enough to go do more armed robberies. If we have better bets to avoid repeat crime, I'd like to see them investigated.
Otherwise, the robber is likely to get out angry, having picked up a lot of useful robbery tips, and with great problems finding a decent job due to the conviction. Delaying
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the main function, insulation, as in insulate society from criminals by keeping them apart.
Actually the two most important functions are insulation and deterrence. Both rehabilitation and retribution are irrelevant in comparison.
Unfortunately, we may keep criminals apart from society, but do so by putting then together with other criminals.
Prisons have reputation as "finishing schools" to learn criminal trades from experienced pros and as a place to learn the use of violence as an everyday solution for problems.
It would seem that a better solution would be to isolate criminals from those who would grow and amplify their faults - ideally in the company of better role models. However, coming up with people who can be good role model
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Both the Left and the Right are very active in pushing "Victim's Rights" laws.
"Victim's Rights" is a code word here in the US for vengeance.
Re:Sounds reasonable, but look who's in prison (Score:5, Insightful)
If we allow retribution to be a part of the sentence we have a problem since the victims will have vastly different ideas of what an appropriate sentence is. The punishment will then no longer be able to fit the crime, some victims will ask for execution while others will be able to forgive and forget.
You seem to be assuming that people are only imprisoned for actions that have a victim. Unfortunately, all too often the only victim is the one who's being incarcerated, e.g., for drug possession, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
When posting something like that you should end with something like "or so I've been told".
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you take some pleasure in punishing a person there is no retribution to be had from imprisoning.
Retribution is a school of thought that "the punishment should fit the crime". Supporters of this justification for sentences often quote "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
The criminal sentence used for retribution is to have the criminal pay for damages.
No, that's just another form of punishment. Equivalent to a fine in terms of retribution and deterrence, but having the additional rehabilitational element of making the offender appreciate the financial cost of the crime to society or the victim.
The reason the right wants longer prison sentences is more related to deterrence and containment. (Keep them off the streets.)
Containment is part of deterrence. And no, it's not just that. Retribution is very big
Re: (Score:2)
Stop making a fool of yourself, you've already shown to be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, sorry. Does it count as a book in your jail if it's longer than a twitter post?
Re: (Score:2)
I asked that very question in OP, but was labelled a Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
It only sounds reasonable to people who consider themselves better than people who didn't have access to their opportunities and their choices.
There must surely be a middle ground. Books could go to the library, earmarked for the person to whom they were sent to check them out first. That would benefit all of the prisoners. That would also give an opportunity to check them out for concealed doodads, or veto them for some ideological reason which they're just not going to budge on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it wouldn't be a problem if people sent books to the prison library instead of direct to a prisoner then.
Perhaps we need a campaign to send old books in to your local prison rather than the charity shop (or *from* the charity shop)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the comment below about Islamic gangs it is probably about restricting the materials read. If this counts as some kind of censorship, then it seems to me to be an acceptable form, provided it is limited to prisons.
The new ban includes underwear and stationery. It's not about restricting what inmates read, it's about enforcing the new 'earned privileges' regime.
Books and magazines sent into UK prisons are already censored. For example, porn is now banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Maybe you should try reading a few of these books yourself.