Monday's Letters: Prisons can be effective if they have sufficient resources

It doesn't prevent crime. It does prevent criminals who are locked up from committing crime, but it does nothing to prevent those who haven't been caught from doing so. Further, it doesn't always prevent those who are locked up from committing crime; in many cases it simply delays it until they get out, when they resume their criminal career because they don't know how to do anything else.

It doesn't deter crime. It can make the offender regret the years he's lost inside, and can thereby persuade some to go straight – eventually. Offenders can sometimes "grow out of" their criminal career when they know that the next sentence will be a very long one. For the most part, however, no criminal considers prison at the time of the offence because he's convinced he's going to get away with it. The only deterrence to crime would be the certainty of being caught and punished.

It doesn't cure crime. When I was a prison chaplain, the mantra was that people weren't sent to prison in order to be punished: the loss of freedom was a punishment. Notwithstanding tabloid rubbish about prisons being holiday camps, that loss of freedom was a serious punishment.

Prison was not an easy thing to get through. However, unless that time was used constructively, by education or some other means of changing the offender's lifestyle, they'd go back out to re-offend, and nothing would change.

Does prison work? Well, what's it supposed to do? Is it resourced appropriately for that task? Until those questions are answered, the present debate is just so much political posturing and

hot air.

From: Rev Anthony E Buglass, Superintendent Minister, Upper Calder Methodist Circuit, Caldene Avenue, Mytholmroyd.

From: Barrie Frost, Watson's Lane, Reighton, Filey, North Yorkshire.

KEN Clarke, the Justice Secretary, says it costs 38,000 to keep a prisoner in jail for one year (Yorkshire Post, June 30). He also says that 60 per cent of short-term prisoners re-offend within 12 months of being released. Don't these facts shout out to him what is wrong with our prison system and why prison, as it is today, isn't working?

It seems blatantly obvious, to me, that if such outrageous amounts of money are spent on a prisoner each year, re-offending can only be encouraged. It is akin to providing them with free five star hotel accommodation, free quality meals, free gym membership, free TV, free Sky satellite broadcasts and so on.

Prison sentences could be drastically reduced, other than for those who pose a risk for the safety of the public, if proper discipline, hard work and far less comfortable living conditions were imposed, but, there again, this requires a modicum of common sense, and common sense has never been a regular companion of MPs.

The prison budget is to be severely reduced but this will only, apparently, affect prison numbers, so are prisoners to be immune from all the cuts innocent members of the public are having to face? Will such appalling amounts of money still be spent on keeping prisoners in jail?

I'll bet Singapore doesn't spend 38,000 a year on prisoners, nor have such a high re-offending rate, nor have a drug prison problem, but what does a small country like Singapore know about law and order?

The time seems not too far away when some misguided academics will suggest paying criminals 10,000 a year if they promise not to re-offend, as this, they would claim, would save the taxpayer a lot of money.

Is there a degree course on how to be barmy?

From: Les Arnott, Athelstan Road, Sheffield.

AS a former magistrate and chairman and also member of the old Sheffield Probation Liaison Committee, I am horrified at Ken Clarke and the Tory betrayal of the already under-protected people of this country.

"Fewer criminals to go to prison" suggests the stories. This is a disaster. There is precious little alternative to be found in so-called community punishments. Our over-stretched – nay, swamped – Probation Service simply cannot offer sufficient attention to the individuals they are supervising now. Meetings with offenders just once a fortnight or less is an exercise in futility. I spoke to one senior probation officer several years ago who confided to me that more than 50 per cent of work orders are breached and from my own visits, I was never fully satisfied that these were all sufficiently rigorous in any case.

There is only one way that Mr Clarke's money-saving scheme could be implemented – and work – but sadly, it would inevitably backfire as courage to see it through would fail.

All wanton breaches must result in immediate custody. You can easily spend an entire morning in a court dedicated to breaches and not see a single waster sent down.

Magistrate guidelines are already designed to prevent custody. In those countries where alternatives are used successfully, there is an element of both fear and certainty in the offender that breaches will not be tolerated.

Consequently, with a proper system, Mr Clarke would be horrified to see prisoner numbers shoot up initially but in the longer term, it is the only way community punishments will or can work. The big rise in prison numbers would only be temporary.

Always remember that community punishments without teeth will only ever

work with that minority who genuinely want to change and rebuild their lives.

Old dogmas give way to flexibility

From: Don Burslam, Elm Road, Dewsbury Moor, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

As a Liberal Democrat supporter, I welcome

their participation in the coalition. Of course, politicians are above all ambitious for office and power and there is nothing wrong or dishonourable in that.

The Lib Dems have rightly accepted that dealing with the huge financial mess must have priority so they have joined their partners to provide a stable Government in an emergency.

Inevitably, Labour accuses them of treachery and betrayal and I suppose we must pay some attention to them. They are after all experts in betrayal, having betrayed the whole country by leaving us effectively bankrupt.

Their answer is that it's global but the seeds of the disaster were sown long before 2008 when we were riding on a wave of foolish optimism.

A certain amount of eating of words has been inevitable; this is known as compromise. Those who prefer trench warfare and the old class struggle should know that coalitions are common on the Continent and some of those countries are a lot more successful than we are.

Perhaps this is the start of a new era when stale old party labels and dogma take second place to more flexible alliances.

Policies that cost jobs

From: Andrew Cooper, Ascot Avenue, Kimberley, Nottinghamshire.

HAVING read Mr Neal's letter (Yorkshire Post, June 28) in which he praised the work of Mrs Thatcher's government, I have no doubt he will have been pleased to read that leaked Government figures reveal that, thanks to George Osborne's Budget, 1.3 million workers will be joining the ranks of the unemployed.

Can Mr Neal tell us how the economy is going to recover when thousands will now be depending on benefits?

Thanks to Thatcher, this country's manufacturing industry was decimated. The monolithic state monopolies that Mr Neal mentions have all been purchased by foreign companies who are only interested in being able to pay their shareholders increasing dividends.

Perhaps I can forgive Mr Neal as he lives in Cleethorpes, miles away from the parts of the country that suffered under Thatcher.

There were three million people unemployed thanks to her policies.

It's pretty obvious that many voters have short memories.

Only time will tell if this Government's policies work but one thing is sure. Many decent hard-working people will lose their jobs.

In praise of Jamie

From: Nigel Bywater, Airedale Terrace, Morley, Leeds.

ANDREW Lansley, the Health Secretary, told the British Medical Association conference in Brighton that the Jamie Oliver approach will not work in tackling public health problems like obesity and smoking (Yorkshire Post, July 1).

For me any criticism of Jamie Oliver is wrong. Lansley said the TV chef's approach to school food had not had the desired effect. Jamie Oliver was vital in getting the last government to focus on getting better school meals and setting up the School Food Trust; it gives independent support and advice to schools and parents to improve the standard of school meals.

Before Jamie Oliver, standards of school food were shockingly low. Government ministers are out of touch, and they have only been in office a matter of months.

Police chief's pay is a waste

From: NR Francis, Atholl Crescent, Doncaster, South Yorkshire.

THE decision to give Meredydd Hughes, the South Yorkshire Chief Constable, a 40,000 pay increase beggars belief. My initial gut feelings are both of anger and disgust.

His salary is the equivalent to the amount collected from about 300 homes for council tax in Doncaster. What a waste.

If the person at the top of this system is so out of touch with public feeling, or perhaps doesn't care, then what chance now of finding a decent policeman at the bottom of the system?

MPs' interests

From: Colin Cawthray, Elmete Drive, Roundhay, Leeds.

DONCASTER is to be run by Government-appointed commissioners (Yorkshire

Post, July 1) – which means they will oversee the running of council affairs.

Doncaster has had quite a number of problems over the last few years. Doncaster have three Labour MPs: Ed Milliband, Caroline Flint and Rosie Winterton. What sort of interest do they have in the running of the town? After all, they were elected to represent the citizens of Doncaster.

Pensioners will get no real benefit from Budget

From: JW Smith, Sutton-on-Sea.

YOUR Budget report (Yorkshire Post, June 23) states: "Pensioners have emerged as the real winners."

How can this be true when there is no mention of those aged 75 and over? The only certain change in this group is they will suffer from an increase in VAT.

This increase is totally unfair especially in respect of those people living on benefits, the minimum wage or perhaps on pay not sufficient to attract income tax, as it imposes a disproportionate diminution in their spending powers. Some commentators claim these people spend most of their money on zero-rated items.

Apart from the fact this is not true, these items in any case will be affected by VAT increases in transport and other costs from January. The multimillionaries in the Cabinet will not even notice it, their living standards will not change.

As for trumpeting a return to the pensions earnings link 12 months before Labour had planned, this is simply a con trick. It will not make the slightest difference for some time, perhaps even three or four years.

I am totally in favour of return of the earnings link, but to say the present proposal is superior to that by the Labour party is simply not true. The final effect over the next couple of years will be precisely the same.

Finally, when it comes to public sector earnings and gold-plated pensions, MPs should remember they themselves form one of the principal groups in this category.