In for a month
Sir: Mr Giles Playfair writes (10 March) that 'in the sense that thousands of men are sleeping three to a cell originally built for one, imprisonment in 1967 is a less civilised punishment than it was a century ago; indeed, it violates a human right guar- anteed under the Prisons Act of 1865.'
Such punishment is indeed 'uncivilised'; but many people who deplore it do not realise that prisoners only sleep (and live) three in a cell because they are not allowed to sleep two in a cell. If, where it is still necessary, men were doubled up instead of trebled up, then obviously rather more men than at present would have to share; but two in a cell originally built for one does at least avoid the ex- treme of discomfort and squalor that results from three in a cell built for one.
Of course, one knows quite well why the authori- ties will not allow two men in a cell—they think they will get up to something; but is it not a little naive, at this time of day, to assume that if you put a third man into the cell with them he will act as a chaperone? It seems only too likely that men are required to endure these unnecessarily 'un- civilised' conditions in order to provide an official excuse if there is trouble.
Previous page
