Prisons

 

Would I give them the vote?

 

George Chalmers

                  

'Some might spell the X with a Y' – Norman Stanley Fletcher        

               
1

In November last year, after a total of 15 years under house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader became, in Mandela's post-apartheid phrase, 'free to be free'.  Could anyone begrudge this brave woman her liberation? Oh yes, indeed – consider a cross section of Glenochil wags who signed a petition I drafted on her behalf in the late 80s. Etched into a short list of printed names were three Jimmy Boyles, a Joe Beltrami, two Charlie Chans and, most imaginative of all, a No' Noo Kato.
     A more committed activist might have thrown himself under the hooves of the jail bookie. However, like Emily Davison's 'interference with a horse' on Derby Day, the gesture was just badly timed. Within days of pinning up the notice, a few anti-authoritarian skirmishes had escalated into a full-blown prison riot. An unconnected uprising for sure, but door-to-door canvassing was cancelled and I abandoned all thoughts of distant human suffrage.
     Within the confines, attitudes of 'pushing every boundary' hold sway and liberal or lax regimes are routinely exploited by some. 'Always trust prisoners to spoil things for themselves', as the inside truism goes. Extending enfranchisement to prisoners will create a line of spoiled ballots stretching from Bar-L to Burma via Robbin Island.
     If the vote is given to those doing a year or less, many won't have, or achieve, levels of literacy adequate enough to read a candidate list. Quite apart from a life of undeclared or unknown dyslexia, significant numbers of first offenders, who could benefit from education intervention, fall into the short-term duvet of aimlessness. They fill their days with masses of opiates, watch TV and learn to be repeat offenders.

 

2

Reducing this topic to the personal best serves the purpose of assessment born of inside knowledge. The two prisoners on the hustle are or were long-termers; men who have spent too long in their heads. A Mr John Hirst, now a liberated axe murderer who, according to reports, made a cup of coffee as his female victim died; and Peter Chester, a paedophile rapist who killed his niece. Against them and the European Court of Human Rights' ruling, stand Jack Straw and David Davis. Long-term pecking orders would deny the first two a nod in the desert.  Most short-termers wouldn't recognise the last two in a line-up.  
     Being allowed to vote should, perhaps, be dependent on specific things. 'With rights come responsibilities', it's said; fair enough. Reward schemes operate in every institution; why not in this instance? If prisoners, serving four years or less, are provided real opportunities to be responsible through education, meaningful work or drug reduction programmes, and demonstrate a shift in emotional intelligence, the right to vote should follow. 'Behaviour Modification Works' is a gnomic banner but an insipid rallying call.      Obviously I haven't thought this through and have no idea how enfranchisement could be sold as a prisoner's perk. If they never voted before, chances are they won't bother on release. However, the by-product, a change in attitude towards themselves and society in general, is the objective. Cuts in prison education are fruitless savings. It costs approx £40,000 per annum to keep a person in prison, it could be utilised more insightfully.      
     All long-termers (4years+) are locked-up for serious anti-social acts and forfeit the right to vote until released. Without meaning to sound preachy and keeping things on a human level – why should we be permitted to take part in a process that Emily Davison struggled and died for?  In every long-termer's crime there's at least one long-term victim. As for Hirst, Chester and those of their ilk, only politicians in marginal seats would want their vote.

 

3

Remand prisoners are an entirely different category and, in a spirit of irony, should only be allowed a thumbprint postal vote for their local Conservative candidate. Would a principled Tory refuse their mark?       
     An example highlights the fickleness of felons when casting a vote. In the mid-70s I was elected to the long-term prisoners' committee in Saughton and worked tirelessly, behind the scenes, to influence the weekly television vote against 'The Man from Atlantis'. After three years served I was determined not to further the torture. Once you had completed a few years, television was a privilege limited between 5.30pm and 8.30pm on weekends only. (Nowadays those times would be included in the punishment tariff.) One week, I jokingly offered a vote to the screws in attendance when a result looked in the balance. If only Aung San had received such dedication. A combination of Machiavellian gerrymandering and unwavering fortitude would overthrow any government.     
     I go back to my touchstone, Emily Davison, who, return rail ticket in pocket, didn't plan to die that day in 1913. She succumbed to injuries four days after the incident and remained charged with 'interfering with a horse' until her death. Prison reports suggest she may, in fact, be Britain's first extreme water-boarding victim. During one of her many incarcerations, after repeated resistance to being force-fed, she almost drowned when an irate prison officer stuck a fire-hose through a window and filled her Strangeways' cell with water. Now that's the only time you would vote for 'The Man from Atlantis'. Nowadays she would shudder as inmates settled down to participate in 'The X- Factor'.

 

George Chalmers is a former bank robber who now writes regularly for the Scottish Review