RUTH Wishart states “there are precious few votes in prison reform and offenders’ rehabilitation” (Lessons learned from Barlinnie’s radical Special Unit remain pertinent today, Oct 6). The voting system is designed to exclude most prisoners from the right to vote. In Scotland it is only since April 2 2020 that those serving 12 months or less have the right to vote, and only then in local authority and Scottish Parliamentary elections. That means only 6% of prisoners have the right to vote. No convicted prisoner has the right to vote in a UK General Election.
She also states of Barlinnie Prison’s Special Unit that it “underscored the basic principle that people are sent to prison as a punishment, not for punishment”. Bearing in mind that prisoner voting rights were only granted just over four years ago, in what way did removing the right to vote help with prisoner rehabilitation? How can it be seen as anything other than an additional punishment?
READ MORE: Solution to school violence is to create a culture based on peace
Ruth also mentions that prisons such as Peterhead and Inverness had “a reputation for making bad men worse”. All men, whether “bad” or “good”, would have suffered for the simple reason that life in prison was designed to be a punishment. There was no outcry at the prisoners’ treatment, with the media believing after viewing the Special Unit that “the prison service had gone soft, maybe even soft in the head.”
The Unit closed in 1994, yet even now, 30 years on, we have exactly the same emphasis on punishment in media stories about prisoners. On the BBC website, for instance, is an article dated October 7 2024(!) reporting on weekly Parkruns for prisoners of Magilligan Prison, which take place entirely within the prison grounds. The governor of the prison “rejects any suggestion that the weekly event is a perk which prisoners do not deserve.”
Ruth Wishart may be correct in saying that we cannot expect every prison to replicate the Barlinnie Special Unit or recruit the “dedicated professionals” required. Until we are all interested in how prisons are run, we cannot expect any major change soon.
READ MORE: Family of Sheku Bayoh accuse Scottish Government of 'stonewalling' inquiry decision
Now, with the Scottish elections ahead, would seem to be an ideal time for all interested parties to form what a former boss of mine would call “a coalition of interests”. The coalition could agree the aims of our penal system and the changes required so those aims are met for all prisoners. Necessarily, the coalition should be broad, ranging from prisoner advocacy groups to victim support groups. It may be that the coalition would agree that we want prisoners to return to society fully rehabilitated. In this way the ethos, if not the actual existence, of the Special Unit could be replicated.
Of course, we would have to accept the changes required. This could mean moving away from prison as a further punishment to loss of liberty as the punishment. Would politicians listen and make the changes required?
David Logan
Milngavie
RUTH Wishart’s article in Seven Days implies that prison doesn’t work, since so many prisoners go on to re-offend. Ruth, usually brilliant, surely misses a point here.
Prison sentences exist mainly to protect society at large, and despite what certain activists would have us believe, they are used as a last resort. The unpleasant truth is that the criminal fraternity see law-abiding people as mugs. How many respond to well-meaning initiatives? Very few, I’d suggest.
READ MORE: Ex-SNP MP Joanna Cherry returns to legal career with top Scottish firm
But, since she has raised the subject, I have a an idea. If anyone is convicted of five or more serious crimes, why not withdraw their benefits? Surely that would persuade some to respect society’s guidelines.
After all, why should we fund their criminal lifestyle?
Before anyone accuses me of right-wingery, my political leanings are far to the left of our current Scottish Government, but we need to live in the real world and accept recidivist criminality as an unfortunate fact. Society is entitled to some protection.
Jim Butchart
via email
I RECENTLY noticed a social media post from Ayrshire SNP MSP Kenny Gibson. In it he stated: “It was a pleasure to take part in the judging for this year’s Champion Beer of Scotland at the Ayrshire Real Ale Festival. A huge range of Scottish ales were available to the several hundred participants.” He went on to state how good it was to meet with the owners of an Arran brewery and sample one of their products.
READ MORE: Minimum unit pricing of alcohol damages the cause of independence
Is this the very same Kenny Gibson MSP who supported and presumably voted for the huge rise in alcohol minimum unit pricing, which greatly increased the price of the beers in my local supermarket in a probably vain attempt to reduce consumption?
I am sure there are views on both sides of this debate but I would be really grateful if politicians maintained at least the semblance of consistency and not the heights of hypocrisy. If, for example, the forthcoming UK Budget raises duty on spirits, I sincerely hope there will be no complaints from SNP MSPs, whose actions have just led to a £4 rise in the price of a bottle of whisky.
Dr Iain Evans
Edinburgh
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here