The Scandal of Parkhurst Jail
SIR,—Mr Wheatley asks why you bothered to pub- lish something by a 'Felon' about prisons. Surely with a little thought Ml Wheatley might have answered his own question: it is our business as citizens to know our own society, nor can we pre- tend to know our society unless we know our insti- tutions as they are: by the same token we blame the Germans who did not know about Auschwitz.
With all institutions we find two opinions offered, one from the governors, one from the governed. We cannot know the truth without setting these two opinions side by side, for it is possible for both opinions to be given in good faith and to be just— and unjust.
An example of this I have not forgotten con- cerned mental hospitals. Another nuclear disarma- ment prisoner in with me worked, when free, in a mental hospital. In prison she met certain drug addicts with whom she discussed mental hospitals; she found to her surprise that they preferred prisons to mental hospitals for various reasons, some not very complimentary to mental hospital staffs. She was sure that these criticisms could net be made of her mental hospital. An ex-patient of that hos- pital arriving later was just as certain that her hospital had suffered from the same defects as the others: the moral of this is that it is always so different when you are on the receiving end.
I don't see the relevance of Mr Wheatley's jibe at 'Felon' gaining kudos among his fellows for getting a letter in the SPECTATOR—only it reminds me of prison officers' attitudes : does Mr Wheatley feel that he himself is also obscurely to blame for getting a letter in the SPECTATOR—if his fellows con- gratulate him on it?
As to provoking 'violent' attitudes towards prison officers, this is both far-fetched and unworthy—an ancient non-argument convenient for suppressing all criticism, and particularly unprovable.
The very simple truth, that do-gooder prison reformers remember, is that prisdn reforms are mainly achieved by putting middle-class people like Messrs Wheatley and Stansfield into prison as prisoners, where the shock of having to endure bestial conditions inspires them thereafter (from suffragettes to COs, homosexuals to nuclear dis- armers) to do something for the submerged and institutionally-degraded prison population—who are not believed, even when they complain, because their accents are not good.
Mr Wheatley does not hesitate to use the old prison officers' chestnut that if you don't like prison, you needn't go there. This was probably said of Auschwitz, too. It is a manner of denying the needs of the situation as it is, in favour of what you would have it, and in the same breath laying blame on the critic who knows from experience, but
it shows no social responsibility, and is, of course, utterly irrelevant to the point at issue. If one could as easily dismiss prisons as prisoners' complaints, one might also dismiss the problem of crime, but such is nursery thinking. The point to be grasped by impartial social consciences is that many people, including myself, have seen English prisons from the inside and found them disgraceful in various ways, and far worse in practice than they are sup- posed. to be on paper and in theory. Nor do we believe that the problems of crime and punish- ment are solved by sweeping them under the mat or behind the prison wall or out of the scope of public discussion.
With regard to Mr Stansfield's assertion, I remem- ber Lord Stonham remarking that it was widely alleged that 'criminals' tend to exaggerate, to sup- press essential but damaging facts, making themselves out to be victims and distorting the truth: this, said Lord Stonham, might or might not be true of the 'criminal'—it depends on the individual concerned —but he had found it to be extremely true of the Home Office. I myself felt very surprised the first time the Home Office maintained a flat untruth; thereafter I grew accustomed to it, finding the vested interest which rejected inconvenient truth stronger among officials and middle-class people than among less Panglossy ex-convicts.
If it were to emerge, for instance, that Mr Wheatley earns his living as a prison officer, would this, do you suppose, disable his judgment by bias and make him liable to distortions of the truth, even as 'Felon' is supposed to be disabled and irresponsible? . irresponsible? .
OONAGH LAHR
9 Wilton Road, Muswell Hill, London, N10
Previous page
