What Prison Is (Or What It Should Be).

I've got an interest in political philosophy. As a result, or perhaps my interest is the result, I also have an interest in what exactly we mean when we talk of liberty and freedom.

They are both somewhat emotive words, inspiring great civil movements and clouding judgement in (probably) equal measure. Talk of liberty and freedom ultimately results in talk of rights - basic human rights, civil rights, entitlements, positive rights, negative rights, the list goes on. In a society which chooses to dress up like a democracy, the right to vote is seen as one of the most important.

Which brings me to what made me want to write this in the first place.

The guy who wrote the first article is Richard Grayson. As I read the article he almost had me convinced prisoners should be given the right to vote, but upon reading the article again I don't think I can really accept his argument. Let me tell you what I read his argument to be:

1 - Either, prison is primarily about punishment or it is about rehabilitation.

2 - Prison is primarily about rehabilitation.

(2* - The Lib Dems agree with 2.)

3 - Giving prisoners the vote will help rehabilitate them.

4 - So, we should give prisoners the vote.

(4* - So, the Lib Dems should take up this issue and give prisoners the vote.)

I have two problems with this. Firstly, will giving someone a vote in the general election, people who generally don't use it outside of prison, really help educate and rehabilitate them? My answer is no. It might be a useful tool, but it isn't a necessary one. Young people can learn the importance of their future vote and of politics without actually having it. The disenfranchisement of many prisoners starts long before they enter the prison system.

Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, the claim that prison is either primarily punishment or primarily rehabilitation is a polarisation that needn't be made. It is a polarisation that is divisive and as such is dangerous. Prison is neither a carrot or a stick. Prisons are (or should be) a frame in which people are presented the option of chasing the carrot, either for the carrot's sake or for fear of the stick.

Prison is a controlled environment in which we can restrict liberty as a punishment by removal of rights. The most obvious being the right most commonly thought of as liberty - freedom of movement, but not limited to this. I would argue in favour of removal of all rights except the most basic - right to life. All rights which can be removed can also be returned, except that right to life. Once we remove it we cannot resurrect that person.

The reasons I chose this somewhat extreme position are simple.

The restoration of rights is vital to how I see prison as a working example of punishment as rehabilitation. I suggest good behaviour rewarded incrementally with restoration of rights and granting of opportunities for personal development. Prison is not a place I recommend equal opportunity other than the equal opportunity for opportunity, it is imperative that reward system is a meritocracy. Each prisoner will value each right and opportunity to a different degree; the most effective rehabilitation must be tailored to each person and packaged as a reward scheme. A meritocracy is best assured by starting everyone in the same position and granting rewards, like the restoration of rights, as it is merited and as they are valued by the prisoner. One man's heaven is another man's hell is the cliché which springs to mind, but it is true. What is a carrot for one man is rich tea biscuits to another. We need to make sure carrots are available to everyone.

Prisons are becoming colleges of crime, and the way to ensure they are less so is to limit the amount of freedoms the lecturers in crime have to conduct their classes. Ensuring only those who have shown a willingness to change, or who recognise their previous actions are mistakes, have these freedoms would ultimately tackle the current high test scores at HM Colleges (by which I mean re-offending).

We shouldn't approach the subject of prisons, or any problem, as a black and white issue. To approach a problem in such a way is to almost definitely get it wrong. Giving fair consideration to both sides of the argument and finding a solution which utilises the best of both is part of why I am a Liberal Democrat. I don't like being told that being a Lib Dem means being radical for radical's sake.

Science and Journalism.

This sort of story irks me. IRKS me.

It's no wonder many people can believe in evolution and the divine when evolution and the science behind it is so inaccurately reported. I don't believe the writer of the article is this silly, Victoria Gill is a science journalist. She probably know's her stuff. I'd be willing to bet that the breadth and depth of her knowledge surpasses most people.

Headlines like "Plant sends SOS signal to insects" are nothing short of an attribution of mentality to the plant, implying the plant has chosen to send a signal. One, or a few, of the plants mutated an advantage and the advantage meant those plants with it could succeed in a way others without the advantage could not. It did not decide it needed back-up from insect-marines to eliminate the evil caterpillar threat.

Further into the story, there is a quote from Silke Allmann, "Why the larvae would produce such an apparently [disadvantageous chemical] in their saliva remains to be determined". This hinting at the principle of evolution while simplifying it for the public, would you guess, irks me.

The reason the larvae produce such a chemical is because it is not such a disadvantage. The larvae do not choose to produce the chemical any more than we choose to salivate at the thought of our favourite foods. They produced it once, it became an advantage at the time and it has since to become a species threatening liability. What the advantage is might become known, or it's effects are now neutral, in some sort of natural equilibrium - but it is not such a disadvantage that the species are under threat. Even so, if they were under threat because of it, they would not simply choose to not produce it any more.

Journalism has a responsibility to report the facts in an accurate manner. With science and statistics it so often fails to do this.