Letter: Commercial and public duty in privatised prisons
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Kenneth Clarke is up to his old tricks again ('Prisoners with private means', 22 December). By citing the example of the recent privatisation of a number of remand prisons, he is trying to make acceptable the general case for privatised prisons. However, he failed to mention that remand prisons are not at all representative of penal institutions as a whole.
Remand prisons are there to ensure that persons accused of certain crimes do not try to escape or re-offend. They are not being 'punished' in the strict sense of the term, since they are presumed innocent until proved guilty. For them, therefore, it may be possible to make out a case for involving agencies other than the state in their administration.
However, the institutions where those actually convicted serve their sentences must remain the concern of the community at large, since private interests could distort the proper administration of justice. For example, supposing a particular prisoner proved to be particularly productive for the privatised institutions, it would be in the latter's interest to make it more difficult for him to obtain remission than would normally be the case. Conversely, the institution might attempt to hasten the remission of prisoners, not on merit, but because they are less productive or even downright expensive to keep.
Very few people will disagree with the Home Secretary that to create more humane conditions in prisons is a good thing. But why should this privilege only extend to those prisoners who happen to be accommodated in a private
institution?
Yours sincerely,
WALTER CAIRNS
Manchester
22 December
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments