Books in prison

[Nennypops]

I'd be amazed if this hasn't been discussed on MN, but if it has I can't find it.

It's about the new rules saying prisoners can't be sent books. The excuses given seem to be:

1. You can have up to 12 books from the prison library. Great, if you're allowed access to the library. Apparently in some prison staffing limitations are such that you can go weeks, if not months, between visits. You'd have to be an incredibly slow reader for that to be adequate.

1. Prisoners should earn privileges, and they can buy books out of what they earn from working in prison. I'm really not too sure that the basic ability to read should be regarded as a privilege, but again it's unrealistic. Not every prisoner is able to work - not least because again there is a shortage of jobs in prisons available to prisoners - and if they are, they earn at best around £8 pounds a week. Out of that they have to pay for phone cards, stamps and stationery, soap, toothpaste, deodorant, etc etc. Given the price of books, it would take weeks to save up enough.

1. Friends and relatives can give them the money to buy books. That's if they can afford it, of course. And, if I have a book that I want to lend to a friend in prison, why should I have to give him the money to buy a duplicate? What should I do if the book is out of print?

1. It's too much hassle doing security checks on things sent to prisoners. Fine, but why not make sensible exceptions? How hard is it to pass a book through a scanner to check nothing is being smuggled in? If they're worried about books telling people how to make bombs or drugs, again it really doesn't take long to have a quick look through, and they can ban books in foreign languages or science books. It's not like they're having crates of books sent in, it seems to me that the time this takes is a small quid pro quo for the simple civilised act of allowing prisoners to read.

I've commented on various forums on this subject and it's shortsightedness.
Access to books is the mark of a civilised society.... Limiting access under the guise of these rules is a huge step backwards.
However something I took from this article on the subject that I found just as disturbing was the restriction of access to new underwear for female prisoners. Again a huge step backwards for a 'civilised' country.

Sorry Goblin - I'm afraid it wasn't clear to me it was a quote of a post above.

No need for the narky comment.

The underwear situation is disgusting. Things like that are likely to affect how prisoners feel about society in general, and therefore imo likely to affect their chances of ever getting reintegrated into society= our chances to live without any further crimes committed by them.

I know someone that has been in and out of prison over the last 10 years first sentenced when he was 18.
I know he has read a number of books and he used to watch a lot if films to.
He had learnt a lot from reading but in someways it's pointless because he does nothing with it partly because he doesn't know how to/ doesn't want to/ feels he has been written off and what's the point of evening trying and so the patterns continues.
Also it can depend what prison your in to what education and training is available.
Also the support received after being released some have a probation worker some don't and some don't even know where or what support is available after.

Anything: No need for the narky comment.

Hang on, you make a very narky comment asking which post someone was referring to and accusing them of being passive aggressive, someone kindly tells you what it is and points out correctly that in a short thread it's not hard to find, and you accuse her of being narky?

The post with the italics read to me as an anti-rehabilitationist post - the kind that think anyone who believes offenders can change is a liberal lefty lentil weaver. That's what I was referring to as it felt like a PA post which could have been directed at me. I suspect now that it was actually a quote but that wasn't clear in that post - hence my confusion.

I think the "not hard to find" point was unnecessary and felt very sarcastic. I've made a valid contribution to this debate - I'm not a fool!

Maybe a smiley would've lightened the tone

I used to work with ex offenders. I found that people who were likely to re offend did so because they didn't know what else to do with themselves once they got out/ found it difficult to break existing patterns of behaviour (especially wrt drugs).

If you're able to read what you want in prison- or learn to play a musical instrument, which incidentally I hear have also been banned- you're not just entertaining yourself. You're also setting up a virtuous cycle of behaviour, and getting into the habit of spending your time in constructive ways. Rehabilitation, in other words.

Unfortunately it comes down to money. It isn't just books that are affected. 'Efficiency' savings are being made in all aspects of imprisonment, staff reductions, wage reductions, regime curtailment etc. Not allowing books to be sent in is one less thing to search which means one less person to pay. I don't feel that this is by any means the most concerning cut that has been made but alas there is no money.

anythingnoteverything - i was referring to the post from which i quoted obviously. and could you explain to me how using italics is 'hiding' and being 'passive aggressive'? i am genuinely confused. i said what i thought, not a whiff of 'passive aggressive'

Grayling faces legal threat over prisoner book ban

Chris Grayling was warned that he could face legal proceedings over the prisoner book ban today, as the campaign against the policy escalated.

Geoffrey Robertson, prominent human rights lawyer and joint head of Doughty Street Chambers, said the Ministry of Justice could be taken to court for acting unlawfully and irrationally and for denying prisoners their right to receive information.

The ban on prisoners receiving books may also breach the 1688 bill of rights by having the secretary of state, rather than a judge, inflict "cruel and unusual punishment" on prisoners who are literate.

He also warned that the exclusion of the Bible from the limit of prisoners having 12 books in their cell could constitute religious discrimination.

"Mr Grayling is not a lawyer; he is a politician who seems to think he is above the law," Robertson said.

"He has no power to impose additional punishment on prisoners over and above that which is imposed by the courts. The action has nothing to do with prison security or any other legitimate purpose.

"The right to read is precious in this country and for prisoners it is a way to lift themselves out of the slough of criminality.

"To deny them the books they need in order to improve themselves is both unreasonable and counter-productive."

Frances Crook, chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, added: "The Ministry of Justice should recognise this policy is flawed and the ban on loved ones sending in books and other essentials to prisoners has little or no support from anyone with an ounce of common sense.

"Reading books goes hand in hand with education, with rehabilitation, with humanity. The spurious arguments in favour of this measure simply don't stand up to scrutiny."

The Ministry of Justice says the ban is part of its earned privileges scheme.

www.politics.co.uk/news/2014/03/31/grayling-faces-legal-threat-over-prisoner-book-ban

I don't think this is a purely monetary issue.

I think even Grayling doesn't phrase it in these term, it is an ideological measure, meant to dole out punishment and to represent a strict regime.

My heart was lifted a bit this morning reading about the case that may be brought against this measure.

It applies to kids too ffs.

It's part of the recurring theme of anti-intellectualism of the Tory party.

Witness IDS contempt for the facts, bungling of statistics, and simply asserting: "I believe that..." when shown that his policies are nonsense.

Or Gove's ideological mission to promote British imperial propaganda in schools.

Like all philistines, they understand only two things: power and money.

Nigella - sorry - as I explained above it wasn't obviously a quote to me. It felt like a PA attack on those who support rehabilitative work with offenders. Unfortunately some genuinely do feel that it is a waste of public money.

I realise I misunderstood but quotation marks around the quote could've helped!

Ironically I think we're in agreement but my misunderstanding has caused all sorts of heckles to be raised.

I hope that's everything cleared up

oh i see i get u now!!
yes i think we are in agreement....