I wonder if the NZ Herald writer intentionally, or accidentally wrote the following byline:
"Freed double murderer John Barlow says 15 years in prison hasn't changed him a bit."
Bit of a worry that. A double murderer, unchanged, now loose in the community ...
8 comments:
He also says he didn't do it. Hmm, which way should we go?
We could ask him to review how he came to be found with the murder weapon ... what with being innocent and all that ...
Roscoe and Peter, what do you expect? Having served more than five years as a full-time chaplain in one of the country's high-security prisons, I am clear about a few things:-
1. Prison never changes an inmate's mind about their innocence or guilt, and nor is it in any way designed to.
2. Prison seldom changes an inmate for the better (apart from normal processes of maturation occurring over a long sentence) and more usually changes them for the worse (as they adapt to a dehumanising environment).
3. Those who are imprisoned in mid-life with already formed personalities, like Barlow, change the least in either direction. They experience it simply as punishment by deprivation of their liberty, something to be waited out.
4. There are no good reasons to regard our prison system as having any redemptive or educational purpose.
Anything contentious there?
I guess that's why we don't call them penitentiaries in this country, Howard. But what's the solution? I've just seen a meeting of the families of victims of violent crime and they didn't look all that happy about letting murderers out at all. Based on your experience, what changes (if any) would you like to see?
Good question, Roscoe. What I would like to see is an informed public discussion about penal policy. Our current rate of imprisonment per capita is one of the highest in the Western world, driven by a popular preference for retribution over all other outcomes, including public protection, reparation, and reformation of offenders. The real function of prisons within our society as "universities of crime", and the effects we all live with, is hidden from public view by the rhetoric of most of those involved in this self-perpetuating system. I could go on ...
Please do go on, Howard. (With Peter's permission, of course.) I'm very interested to know how we can get a better balance between the conflicting objectives of the different publics. The way the current debate on parole hearings is shaping up it looks as if we might have managed to achieve the worst of all possible worlds - or is it the best?
Penal policy is a huge and complex field, Roscoe. In my comments above I was addressing not "the conflicting objectives of the different publics" but rather the irrational expectations of one particularly vocal public - those who demand only one type of punishment, imprisonment, for most categories of crime, and that prison sentences be longer and harsher. This is driven by a desire for retribution, with some expectation that it will make us all safer from the bad guys.
The irrationality lies in a naive belief that the effect of long periods of imprisonment is to produce any of these outcomes:
1. Deterrence of would-be offenders
2. Recompense for victims
3. Reformation of criminals
4. A society with less crime
Our prison system, as currently operating, actually makes each of these worse. We want retribution, in this particular form, and we all pay for it.
Yeah, I guess that's probably as far as we can take it here, Howard. I'm grateful for your insights. Can't help wondering, though, if it isn't culturally insensitive to deny victims the chance to take utu.
Post a Comment