Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Every day we read or hear of more draconian cuts to public services, and how government bodies and independent think-tanks alike are struggling to find solutions to alleviate the pressure being felt across the spectrum of public services.


We do, however, have a potential source of manpower that is so-far largely redundant. Now, I'm not suggesting we introduce what we mentally envisage when the subject of chain gangs comes up in conversation i.e - prison warder on horseback, rolling a toothpick between the corners of his mouth, shotgun pointed skywards. No, I'm proposing a work force that is shackled, within reason, and are tasked with work such as assisting in the menial tasks that wouldn't otherwise threaten the livelihoods of free citizens - such as cleaning-up after flooding, painting railings and general manual labour that the state saves money by allocating the task to offenders. And it's worth remembering that eventually the Police could be reduced to a number that would scale-back/effect their visible presence on our streets, so a tougher precedent would be useful to set.


What are your views on introducing chain gangs into the UK penal system?

Under current laws convicted prisoners cannot be compelled to work - they would have to volunteer. I imagine only the relatively small percentage of Category D prisoners currently held in open prisons would be considered eligible (many of whom already work in the community) - the rest would probably escape at the slightest opportunity given the fairly minor consequences absconding attracts.


The idea is dead in the water - in my view.

A chain of working prisoners, shackled together would have to work on collective tasks that they can do while all chained in a line, without obstructing passers by or endangering them. The 'gang' would require policing, probably by a number of guards and the risk of snatches by prisoners' ex-colleagues would need to be considered.


I think a more rural-based application could work. Digging ditches, repairing fencing and painting walls.

What with all the human rights rules and regs it's an unlikely proposition though TBH.



I wasn't aware of this present obstacle, Hal 9000. But do you think the majority of the general public would support a change in current legislation to accomadte this proposed measure?




This scenario would undoubtably put the proposal of introducing chain gangs at risk in its very infancy, KidKruger. Perhaps convicts could be put into a hypnotic trance during their time outside of the prison environment, with a pre-programmed hypnotic 'suggestion' mentally implanted in their subconscious that blocks them from escaping, voluntarily or otherwise?

HAL9000 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Under current laws convicted prisoners cannot be compelled to work


This is wrong - British convicts can be compelled to work and refusal can invoke punishment. It is remand prisoners that cannot be compelled to work.


However, in practice, punishment involves loss of fairly minor privileges and, possibly, a little time that would otherwise have been credited for good behaviour. In most UK prisons, only a small percentage of prisoners are offered work, anyway - most are enrolled in educational classes or are confined in their cells for up to 23 hours a day.

Scribe wrote:- What are your views on introducing chain gangs into the UK penal system?


Well over due!


They should be made to work for their daily bread, and if they don't work, then no bread!


All violent criminals should start their sentences with a flogging, preferably administered by the victim.


SeanMcG will be wringing his hands with disappointment when he reads this post.



Jeremy, who said anything about public humiliation? Although I'm happy to admit that my OP may not be as clear as it should be. I, as a taxpayer, wouldn't want chain gangs performing pointless tasks just for punishments sake, such as breaking rocks all day with sledgehammers. No, I would want them performing constructive tasks, such as providing manual labour in repairing the motorways, contributing to the cleaning-up effort after disasters. Jobs they can feel proud of, not putting themselves in a position where they run the risk of having rotten vegetables and dog feces hurled in their direction. Alhough I'm willing to concede that some tasks would expose them to the general public.




Acumenman, I'd prefer it if you kept this thread free of any personal issues that may exist between you and this SeanMcG, if you don't mind. If SeanMcG has served a custodial sentence, for whatever reason, in the past; as far as I'm concerned, he's done his time and is perfectly welcome to comment and offer constructive criticism on this thread without fear of any prejudice you hold against former inmates. In short, this isn't the exercise yard, so play nice.

Don't anti slavery treaties make it illegal to force anyone to work?


Another thing is the possible impact on local businesses who would be undercut by the free labour of the prisoners and might not be able to compete. I think there were many problems with this in America in the past with prison governors being able to outbid private companies for contracts.

I fully embrace this. Chain gangs could march up and down my road sweeping up the leaves and berries which my hawthorne tree deposits every year: they create such a mess on my otherwise pleasant street and it would certainly save me the task on a Sunday morning. Whilst they are at it, these criminals could clear up all the poo which has emanated from my neighbours' obese and overly pampered cats. Incarceration for their violations of the law is not in itself a sufficient deterrent for their unintelligible, felonious skulls.


It could be rather amusing for us law-abiding types. Indeed, one could make a day out of it. You know, following our Sunday morning latte and reading of the Daily Mail, the childen and the grandchildren could watch: teach them the consequences of not abiding by the law at an early age. But the proposals would have to be fair. It simply wouldn't do for all categories of villains to undertake the same task. A mugger, for example could be made to remove graffiti, whilst the drunk driver could collect the hawthorne berries shed by my hawthorne tree: one berry at a time. In the interests of true justice, punishment would have to be commensurate with crime. Indeed: my grandchildren could say "ooh look grandma, that man must have been very bad because he's picking up the hawthorne berries". In fact, wrongdoers could even be made to wear labels: shoplifter, burglar, fare-dodger etc.


Ah, but why stop there. These miscreants will have, undoubtedly, come from families that are comprised of other miscreants. In order to stem this culture of lawlessness within such families, their partners and sprogs should, too, be forced to partake. And in areas where such problem families are seemingly ubiquitous, a whole estate - for example - could be drafted in. But why stop there, how about the entire population of a perceived rough and run down area?


The possibilities are endless. Let us waste no further time. This is a fantastic opportunity to impress upon the minds of these wrongdoers that the soft option of prison will no longer do - they need to have instilled into them a sense of guilt, of embarrassment, of shame and humiliation, so that the likes of me may enjoy a better quality of life and sleep more easily at night - of course.


(Forgive this, esteemed Chair. I noticed that my football hooligan alter-ego had not as yet been deactivated, and I simply could not resist such an opportunity as this one).

^:))



Scribe wrote:- If SeanMcG has served a custodial sentence, for whatever reason, in the past; as far as I'm concerned, he's done his time and is perfectly welcome to comment and offer constructive criticism on this thread without fear of any prejudice you hold against former inmates. In short, this isn't the exercise yard, so play nice.


Soooo sorry mr scribe sir it wont happen again, even though it made me laugh out loud.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...