One blog I have been reading for the past year is called Ben's Prison Blog. It is a by a serving prisoner called Ben Gunn. Ben has spent over 30 years at her majesty pleasure. When he was 14 he was involved in a fight with another boy that tragically led to the death of this individual. He pleaded guilty to murder and was effectively given a life sentence with a tariff set at ten years - so he should have been released 20 years ago. Except he still in prison. While inside, Ben hasn't killed anyone, he hasn't committed one violent offence in the entire 30 years. He has, however, been a thorn in the side of the HM prisons service - he has not played the game. He has also broken a number of non-violent regulations, such as developing a relationship with a female member of staff.
Recently he was about to be sent to open prison with the hope he could be released in 12 months time. On the day he was due to make the trip to Prescoed Open Prison, he borrowed an illegal phone to contact the outside world. From this moment on the story becomes sketchy. The next fact is that when his property was x-rayed on leaving the prison the phone was in it. Ben's story is that the con who he borrowed the phone from, stashed it there. This is a problem because prisoners aren't allowed mobile phone (in fact it's a crime, punishable by a further 2 years in prison).
It is now highly likely that Ben Gunn release to open conditions will be go ahead and it may now be many years before he is released.
This is a case of breaking a butterfly on the wheel.
I think Ben is daft for using a mobile phone on the day of his release. I believe the phone was planted by the con as I don't believe anybody knowing their property was to be x-rayed would be that stupid. Even so should possession of a mobile phone halt Ben Gunn's move to Open Prison?
The answer to me is no, maybe if this was the first parole hearing after the 10 year tariff was up, this maybe a legitimate reason to deny release. But after a further 20years it is disproportionate to prevent his freedom based on what is basically a misdemeanour. I have on occasion driven above the speed limit. People I am friends with have not paid for items they should have. Most students at my university broke copywrite law. Should the book be thrown at us for these trivial offences. The answer, of course, is no. Part of being human is making mistakes and doing things we shouldn't do. Very few people live a year, let alone 30 years, without been totally blameless and it unreasonable to expect even convicted murderers trying to get out not to be human occasionally.
There is a difference between these misdemeanours and what Americans would call a felony. If Ben had say stabbed an inmate, dealt drugs or stolen something then this would raise doubts about whether he was safe to be released. But do we actually think Ben Gunn is not suitable for open conditions because he used a mobile phone? Is he a threat to society, numerous psychological assessments and his non-violent 20 year stretch indicate that he is not a threat in any way.
I'm not saying that Ben shouldn't be punished for using a mobile phone (removal of phone privileges for a week or two may be an ironic punishment) but the sentence must fit the crime. This is about what society do we want to live in. Do we want to be caring and compassionate or vindictive and cruel. If it is the former then we should release the prostate cancer sufferer (Yes he is not well)to open conditions as soon as humanly possible. Plus as a taxpayer, I don't want the Government to keep on forking out 40 grand a year to keep him inside!
No comments:
Post a Comment