Following an attack in March, in which his throat was slashed by a fellow inmate, Ian Huntley is set to sue the Ministry of Justice for up to £100,000 for failing in its duty of care towards him. This incident, once again, brings to the fore the usual questions surrounding prisoners and human rights. Should Huntley be allowed to bring this action before the courts, or should he just count himself lucky that the death sentence no longer exists in the UK?
In 2002 Ian Huntley committed a heinous crime, a crime for which he was found guilty and a crime for which he is being punished. From a very simplified point of view, justice has been served; Huntley is now in a place where he can serve no danger to the public and he has been deprived of his freedom for at least 40 years (in reality, most likely the rest of his life).
Ian Huntley is suing the Ministry of Justice for £100,000
Naturally, this latest revelation has sparked outrage across the internet, as does most anything in this vein; be it rapists being allowed televisions and PlayStations in their cells or a murderer such as Ian Huntley looking to the same legal recourse as any law-abiding individual.
There are essentially two issues raised here by today’s news. First is the age-old question of whether prisoners should be allowed any human rights. The second surrounds the role of the prison guards; does the fact that these attacks were carried out constitute a failure on the part of the guards, or should it all be seen as part and parcel of Huntley’s punishment?
In killing Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, Ian Huntley deprived two 10-year-old girls of the most fundamental of all human rights; the right to life. Should this therefore mean that Huntley should be deprived of the self same right as punishment for his actions? There are many out there who would argue that he should hang; both as punishment for his crimes and also to save the money that would otherwise be spent on keeping him incarcerated. With the death penalty having been abolished since 1969, the point is moot.
It appears that ‘human rights’ is becoming more and more the buzzword which is rolled out whenever any controversial story surrounding prisoners emerges, when in actual fact the references to human rights are very much inaccurate. The ‘right’ of a prisoner to have a TV or a games console is about as far removed from human rights as you can get. I am firmly of the opinion that such incentives can be put to positive use in the tinderbox environment of a prison. When you have hundreds of violent individuals locked up for years at a time, you need to take every option available to you in order to maintain a peaceful, healthy environment. If that means that the prisoners are allowed to earn certain luxuries, then so be it; it is certainly far from the ‘free TVs for everyone’ culture that the red-tops would like us to believe it is.
The deprivation of human rights, on the other hand, is a completely different kettle of fish. Here, as opposed to Xboxes and TVs, we have concepts such as the prohibition of torture, and the right to a fair trial. Whilst many prisoners will have committed heinous and reprehensible crimes, if we deign to treat them in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are we really any better than them?
Whilst I believe that luxury goods should be allowed at the discretion of the Governor as long as there is a legitimate case for their allowance, I would not be able to stand by and watch prisoners be deprived of their human rights. It would make a complete and utter mockery of our justice system and is not symptomatic of an advanced democracy in the 21st century.
This brings me nicely to the second point: should attacks by inmates on inmates be seen as part and parcel of the prison experience? In a word, no.
The purpose of imprisonment is two-fold. First, and most importantly, it serves to remove those who pose a danger to society. Second, it ensures that criminals are able to repay their debt to society whilst not being in danger of reprisals from society. If we see it as acceptable for prisoners to attack each other, then we are not allowing prison to serve its purpose.
If, as I believe, prisoners are entitled to the right to live, then they are also entitled to be protected from any and all attacks that would endanger their life. Seeing as this right still applies to prisoners, regardless of their crime, the prison guards at Frankland Prison should have been aware of their duty. It appears that they have failed in that duty and they (and vicariously, their employer) should be punished for this.
As for Jack Straw’s previous remarks that the government had no intention of paying any compensation to Huntley; perhaps he should reacquaint himself with the ECHR and leave it for the courts to decide where the blame lies.
Posts
The Human Rights are not deserved, there is no need to act in order to gain them. When a child is born he/she has human rights, even though he has done nothing but crying and "pooping".
ReplyDeleteOnce imprisoned the only right you are to lose is the freedom of movement. Not the freedom of speech, dignity and so on, this was for example very important in the case if Nelson Mandela during his imprisonment.