Eliza's description of a correctional institution in the UK:

Prisoners cannot be made to do any kind of work while serving their sentences. They may be offered work, but have the right to refuse it. They can stay lounging about in their cells if they wish. They cannot be kept in solitary confinement (called the Segregation Block) for more than a very brief time, and must be visited each day by the Governor if they're in there.
They have the right to a Visit once a month. They must be fed a diet chosen by a dietician and each dinner is tasted first by the Governor before being served to the inmates. They cannot be denied post, either receiving or sending. They can now be permitted to vote. They have the right to worship in the Chapel. They have the right to exercise in the open air once each day for one hour. They can have quite a large number of items in their cells, depending on the security rating of their jail. For A Cat long-term inmates, I believe the number of items is over a hundred. (Hobby and craft things, pictures, radios, magazines, catalogues etc.) They must be allowed outgoing phone calls using phone cards paid for by the prison. They must be allowed to purchase things from the shop on an order system (called 'canteen') Prison Inspectors arrive unannounced in teams of about twelve people to check that the little darlings are warm, have nice bedding, soap etc and their cells are in good condition. Norwich Prison had an entire wing closed down by these Inspectors as the cells were damp. I could go on and on. One thing they can never ever be asked to do is go on a chain gang!! Unheard of!!...
...They also can see a dentist at any time, for free. Ditto a doctor. There is always a medical centre in a prison, and often a Hospital Wing. If necessary they go to the hospital in the town accompanied by two officers and are always given a private room (for their 'dignity') And they always have a TV in their cells, often Sky (which we can't afford) One prisoner in 'my' inmate's jail had had a sex change, and demanded a separate shower in his cell for his private use as he had the body of a woman. He got it.

Well, yes, without the "little darlings," "lounging," "cosseting," and such inflammatory rhetoric, that's pretty much the description of a correctional institution run on humane principles. It seems only right for a "civilized" society to provide adequate nutrition, shelter, and medical care for inmates. It also makes sense to provide education and job training. Maybe an educated and job-trained inmate will go back to a life of crime once he's released, but it still makes sense to give him the ability to live life otherwise if he chooses. And all those "comforts" (which really aren't extravagant) result in a more docile prison population that is safer and easier (and cheaper) to control.

The alternative is cruelty, and I suppose there are many who believe that cruel treatment of inmates is justified. But does it do any good to be cruel, and does cruelty in incarceration make us a better society? And does cruelty to criminals help prevent crime? I don't think so.

In my thirty years as a federal investigator, I visited at least half of the correctional institutions in the State of California. Some of them were labeled "country club prisons" by the demagogues who screamed that liberals were "soft on crime." Well, I've never seen a prison that looked anything like a country club, and I've never met a government official who had a favorable opinion of crime or criminals. That's just rhetoric.

Realistically, incarceration is a necessary part of an effective criminal justice system, but it's a remedy that must be used judiciously. We also need to use creative, practical, tough alternatives to incarceration.

And so after thirty years as a federal investigator, I now work in corrections reform. It's interesting to see the views of UK people on this subject.

Certainly, it's not right to allow those NOT in prison to go without adequate food, shelter, and medical care - but the fact that such things happen, is not an excuse for failing to provide such things to inmates who do not have the freedom to provide such things for themselves. Your argument is invalid, Eliza.

-Joe-