Government says that prisoners should pay for damage to their cells

dirtychinchilla

dirtychinchilla

dirtychinchilla

Soldato
Joined
2 May 2011
Posts
12,362
Location
Woking
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24339347

So, I've just read this article on the BBC where it states that

"• Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said prisoners must pay for damage to their cells"

Now I'm in two minds about this.

Yes, on one hand I think that's reasonable. Damage to cells in unnecessary and they really should act more reasonably. Understandly, for those in prison for mental health reasons, I think that perhaps this shouldn't be a factor because they've been put in the wrong place.

No, on he other hand I expect that this would lead to more criminality in the attempt to get the prisoners to pay. They're often going to struggle to earn much money within the law anyway, because I guess you're unlikely to hire and ex-convict over most people, quite frankly.

Maybe, if handled properly, it could work. I certainly think less damage would be done to cells, anyway.
 
don't they get some form of allowance?... get to earn cash if they do some work etc... in which case reducing their pay/phone credits etc... until the fine is paid off seems reasonable

it does present a problem if two prisoners are sharing a cell though
 
The problem will be with their ability to pay. If damage to cells is becoming a problem why can't they just convict them of criminal damage and add that to the sentence? Or not allow parole?
 
Anyone staying in a hotel or rented accommodation would have to pay for damage they cause to the room... so why should prison be any different?

But yeah they'll need to be careful with fruitcakes that should really be in a mental hospital rather than normal prison, and multiple occupancy cells.
 
Along similar lines, why is it whenever you see on police programs someone steals a car, runs from police and then because of causing a danger to other people police force them off the road resulting in tens of thousands of pounds of damge to both police cars, the stolen car and public property like lamp posts, fencing etc that they then just get a small fine, some community service or a suspended sentance or what not. Why don't they be required to pay for the damage? Even more so if they just crash the car they stole without even being forced off the road by police.

Criminals just don't seem to be held accountable for damage they cause. Sure they get punished but they never have to repay any damage. Could put it through like a CCJ where if you work then a % goes towards paying it off. Could work the same for prisoners with the allowance they get from working in jail.
 
arknor said:
is this because the private prisons are asking for it?
Click to expand...

nope

its just new policy... they're unlikely to actually recover much of the cost of repairs... the average smackhead with a small amount in his account is hardly going to cover the true cost of repairing the cell but it at least he'll face some consequences for it
 
dowie said:
it does present a problem if two prisoners are sharing a cell though
Click to expand...

They should be forced to take out some kind of liability insurance against the risk of their cell mate trashing the cell. Actually, if this ever became a real thing you'd probably get some cons starting up some kind of insurance racket...
 
I thought prisoners could already be held longer for bad behaviour...

If you try charging them for damage to the cells about all that's going to happen in many cases is that they end up spending longer in prison (the penalty for not paying/being able to pay fines imposed by the justice system is usually some kind of time inside).
 
Of course they should. Anyone who damages property owned by the taxpayer should pay for it. It is called responsibility.
 
In theory it seems sensible, but in practise, our current rehabilitation system is a joke, they should just flush the whole thing down the toilet and go back to the drawing board because it doesn't work.

Recidivism in this country is basically indicative of our system not working.
 
Last edited:
With what money are they expected to pay and at what time? What measures will distinguish accidental damage from deliberate damage? What about wear and tear and natural failure? How will the value of the damage be assessed?

Seems like typical right winger policy. Shallow, ill-thought out and likely to be harmful in practice.
 
Mr Jack said:
With what money are they expected to pay and at what time? What measures will distinguish accidental damage from deliberate damage? What about wear and tear and natural failure? How will the value of the damage be assessed?

Seems like typical right winger policy. Shallow, ill-thought out and likely to be harmful in practice.
Click to expand...

some of the answers to those questions are in the article...
 
Well played Chris Grayling!

Come out with an inconsequential proposal, people lap it up (rabble rabble rabble, responsibility, pay for it, blah blah) whilst trying to get 2 & 6 out of a crim for scribbling "x woz ere" on his cell ultimately fails for being a waste of time (guess what, he/she's got not money!)
 
bloodiedathame said:
I'd imagine damage bills amount to bugger all. Any stats around?
Click to expand...

You've obviously never met a government contractor;

/sucks teeth

'Nah mate, you needs your special prison paint, on a job like this. It might look like a couple of knuckle dents in the wall but the damage underneath is wot you got to worry abaht. We're gonna have to take it back to the brick work..........'
 
This will make it nice and easy for bullies to hurt victims in their wallets by damaging someone else's cell and cause massive tension in shared cells to what end it hardly matters to save a few quid in cell decor while we all impersonate insurers for bankers losing bets to the tune of trillions of pounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom