Dear Editor
THE slackness associated with the recent escape of three inmates has to be laid at the door of the Prison Service itself.

Director of Prisons Gladwin Samuels made no attempt to dodge responsibility on this issue and is to be commended for doing so. At the end of the day, however, the effective management of prisoners requires cooperation from a number of agencies, over which the Prison Service itself exercises no authority.

Despite considerable efforts by the Prison Service to reduce the numbers of inmates, their work continues to be frustrated by too many prisoners remanded for trivial offences, or unable to pay bail. Responsibility for this problem lies squarely on the shoulders of the judiciary–the magistracy in particular.

By the end of 2017, targeted reductions recommended after the disastrous fire at the Camp Street prison had largely been achieved by the prisons through early releases; weeding out the mentally ill and others who should never have been in prison in the first instance. The benefit of these efforts has been lost as magistrates complacently acquiesce to prosecutors’ demands.

Reduction of the prison population can also be achieved by greater efforts to work with substance abusers and those mentally affected by drug abuse. As with the remand issue, the Prison Service has to rely on the cooperation of services over which it has no direct control for this kind of support in getting the numbers down.
The long-term solution to our prison problems are preventative rather than punitive.

Private sector concerns over the conditions of prisons is a welcome development. Directing these energies towards provision of jobs and better coordinated job-training programmes for inmates would ease the burden on the over-stretched Prison Service.
Regards
Executive Committee
GHRA