How is military prison different

There were upwards of 4, military prisoners, 1, of whom were in civil prisons. He had understood the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to apply to offences against this Act, irrespective of the length of time of the punishment—that was to say, whether it was penal servitude or imprisonment. If a man was sent to penal servitude, it was not for the persons who bad charge of the administration of those prisons to distinguish between them and other prisoners—they must treat everyone alike, and not make a distinction in the case of either A, B, C, or D.

To do so would lead to the establishment of a very objectionable state of things. His impression was that soldiers who were sentenced to penal servitude were seldom, if ever, taken back into the Army.

Therefore, the rule was altered, and the words "may be discharged " were inserted in the 23rd Article of War. That alteration was made a few years ago. It is quite true to say that it is in the minds of the authorities, when an offence is serious enough to be visited with penal servitude, that the man should not any longer remain in the Army.

He should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information respecting the case of the sergeant to which he called attention the other day? At that time he was told he was out of Order; but there had now been plenty of time to receive a report on the subject.

He admitted that cases like those of desertion were disgraceful offences; but there were many other offences in this Act for which penal servitude, if inflicted, ought not to be carried out in the same way as it was in the ease of ordinary prisoners. The right hon. Gentleman had admitted that soldiers sentenced to imprisonment had a difference made in their favour, and those sentenced to penal servitude ought to have a similar difference made. The Prisons Act of provided that all the prisons throughout England should be subject to the local authorities.

These authorities were the local magistrates sitting in Quarter Sessions, and they were empowered to appoint Visiting Committees, who went to the prisons for the purpose of inquiring into all complaints of prisoners, and so forth. In addition to that, the local authorities had power to make rules with regard to the management of these prisons, and as to the discipline, treatment, and nature of the labour of the prisoners. These rules, and any subsequent alteration in them, had to be submitted for the approval of the Home Secretary.

The prison authority, in addition, was entitled to appoint all the warders, gaolers, and prison officials, and under that Act it secured that the powers conferred were of a very extensive character; in fact, the authorities were supreme in regard to the management of the prisons, the Home Secretary having only a general sort of veto to their proceedings in case it was necessary to exercise such veto, and such veto was rarely exercised.

Now, the Prisons Act of entirely changed all this; and it transferred the prisons of England, Ireland, and Scotland over to the Home Secretary. That Act limited very materially—almost, in fact, entirely did away with—the powers of the Visiting Committees of the Justices, and it left to the Board of Quarter Sessions only the power to appoint a certain number as a Visiting Committee.

This power, which was left to them, simply amounted to no power at all. They had power to visit the prisons periodically, and examine into the condition of the prisoners, and the quality of the food.

They might hear any complaints which were made, and put them into a complaint-book, and report anything they thought fit to the Home Secretary. They, however, hind no original power whatever; all they could do was to bring these matters before the Home Secretary.

In certain cases they still retained power to inflict corporal punishment. That was, in fact, all they could now do. Now, they were asked, in this clause, to give power to the Secretary of State and the Governor General of India to make, alter, and repeal rules for the inspection and management of military prisons; and what he wanted was to secure that there should be an independent inspection of these prisons by Visitors not under the control of the Government.

He very much feared that many of the prisons in India, more particularly owing to the nature of the case, would receive no inspection what- ever. The inspection retained in the Act of for England, Scotland, and Ireland, was very slight indeed; and he would show how slight and imperfect it was by the testimony of one of the gentlemen themselves. In India they did not know that that slight and imperfect inspection existed at all.

He, therefore, desired an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that there would at least be the same independent inspection by Visitors in India that there was in this country.

No doubt, there was a difficulty; but it was one with which the Government ought to grapple and deal. It was clear they could not give up all the safeguards, and go without any security whatever for independent inspection. The word " inspection " was put into the Act; but there was a great deal of difference between an independent inspection and an Inspector. An Inspector was a man covered with officialism.

He had said that the inspection in England was not what it ought to be; and in proof of that he would refer to the evidence given at the Coroner's inquest lately held in the case of John Nolan. I would point out to the hon. Member that his Motion is one which is for an independent inspection in the case of military prisons.

I have not hitherto thought it my duty to stop him in his somewhat discursive remarks; but I must now remind him that, in proposing to discuss the practice in civil prisons, he can only use what he proposes to read as an illustration of of his argument.

His argument was this. He wished to show, first of all, that the inspection in the English prisons was very imperfect, and of a slight character—in fact, not nearly sufficient; and he wished to base on that an argument that they ought to secure for India as good an inspection as they had in England.

He would now refer to the evidence of Sir William Henry Wyatt. I may say the statements of Sir William Henry Wyatt are quite incorrect, as will be found at the end of the evidence. He gives quite an incorrect statement as to the powers of the Justices. Gentleman as to the power of the Justices; but Sir William Henry Wyatt, in his evidence, said the existing rules were no protection at all. He did not go with him quite to that length, because he thought they were some little protection.

I beg to point out that the hon. Member, in going into this detail, and in making the references he has, and is about to make, is necessarily opening a very large discussion which must naturally be forced beyond the clause before the Committee. His statements may contain allegations which will probably have to be met; and I have already pointed out he is only justified in alluding to these matters in a cursory manner, and by way of illustration.

What he wanted was an independent inspection; and he had no objection to that inspection being made even more independent than an inspection by Visiting Justices. He was rather uncertain as to the extent of the Chairman's ruling, and whether he was not to finish reading the paragraph? Member should confine himself to illustrating the particular Question before the Committee; and it was for the hon.

Member to consider how far he was within the limits of that ruling in continuing to quote passages from the Report. He had not stated that the reading of that Report was out of Order; but that these lengthy illustrations were very inconvenient. The witness went on to say—" In my opinion, all the power is in the hands of the governor and surgeon;" and lower down in his evidence he said— The officers used to give us a hint if anything was wrong.

They do not tell us anything now. I do not believe the Home Secretary would protect them if they did so, and they would most likely lose their situations. He did not go so far as Sir William Henry Wyatt went, in saying the Visiting Justices were now utterly powerless; nor did he go to the extent the Home Secretary went, when he said they had a great deal of power.

The fact was that their power had been enormously shaken, and there was very little left for them to do; they were entirely under the control of the Home Secretary, and were bound hand and foot. They had the power of hearing complaints and reporting abuses; but they had no power of preventing an abuse which was going on before their very eyes.

They were required to do such acts, and perform such duties in relation to a prison, as they might be required to do by the Secretary of State; but, up to the present moment, the Secretary of State had not required them to do anything, and was not likely to do so.

He should be very glad if the result of this discussion was to lead the Home Secretary to make more use of the Visiting Justices, and to give them more power; and, at any rate, that some independent inspection of prisons would be provided. He moved to insert, in line 11, the words of his Amendment, " and for independent inspection by. If the hon. Member meant independent inspection under the clause, it was perfectly open for anybody to be appointed, as far as the clause went; and, therefore, the Amendment was either objectionable or not needed.

Member for Meath Mr. Parnell that the visitation of prisons by the visiting magistrates had become an absolute farce. The Commissioners were not only omnipotent, but they almost sneered at any suggestion of the visiting magistrates.

However, the Prisons Act was now the law of the land, and the House was not prepared to alter it; and, moreover, he did not see any sense in making any difference between the military prisons and the ordinary goals. If they were to touch this clause, they must take up the whole prisons question; and he thought they must give the new law a fair trial. He still felt that the Act was a fatal mistake, and would lead to a great deal of mischief; but he could not vote for the Amendment. With whatever safeguards the position of the Visiting Justices might be surrounded, the thing would really depend on the Home Secretary.

He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to consider the matter. The only thing that could make official inspection useful was the provision of unofficial visitation also. In nine cases out of ten the coming of the Inspectors was known beforehand, and preparations were made for their reception. He could not understand the objection to independent inspection. The Government could take care that the unofficial Inspectors were selected from a certain class of the community, and were of a certain social position; but within that limitation care should be taken to have a thorough visitation of all public institutions by persons unconnected with the Government.

To him it was a marvellous thing that so large and influential a body as the Visiting Justices should put up with such a snub as they had received.

He had received several letters on the subject of prison inspection. There was a tendency amongst all officials to stick up for one another, and to yield to the silent pressure of "the Service.

Member Mr. Muntz , whose argument was one of the most singular he had ever heard from the mouth of an independent Liberal. It amounted to this—that, because an admittedly bad Bill had been passed, therefore he would not amend another Bill which dealt with a portion of the same subject. He hoped the hon.

Member would not maintain that position, and thus encourage the Government in ignoring the complaints which were raised of the working of the Prisons Act. Member for Meath would press his Amendment, which was one of vital importance, and would attract public attention to a crying blot in the present system. It would tend to attract public attention to the steady over-centralization of all our institutions; and if this kind of thing went on, instead of having to deal with English officials of the old school, they would be having a set of French prefects introduced into the country, and capable of treating as crimes any reflections upon their manner of doing business.

He was not without hope that the hon. Muntz would follow his hon. Parnell into the Lobby, and he would press his hon. Friend to go to a Division. Member for Meath had in view, and felt, as he did, that a very suspicious step was taken by the Government in withdrawing the prisons from independent inspection.

But, looking to the proposal of the hon. Member, he asked, where was he to get these independent Inspectors from? They were to be nominated and controlled by the Home Secretary, and to take their orders from him; and did the hon. Member suppose that any country magistrate, or local man of independent character, would submit to the indignity of being bound hand-and-foot in that way?

That would be no independent inspection. If they wanted independent inspection, they must intrust it to some local authority; and this Conservative Government had struck away a great Conservative element in that direction. It would be quite impossible to make up for that fatal mistake by such an Amendment as this; and, therefore, while giving the hon.

Member for Meath every credit for THE object he bad in view, he should feel bound to vote against the proposal. Member for Burnley Mr. Rylands ; but he wished to point out to the hon. Member that it would be quite impossible to propose an Amendment which would obviate that difficulty. Their object ought to be to secure independent inspection by the Visiting Justices of the district; and he would suggest to insert in the clause the words " and for facilities for independent inspection by the Visiting Justices of the district.

Therefore, he suggested the withdrawal of the hon. Member's Mr. Parnell's Amendment in favour of the words he had suggested. He appealed to the hon. Muntz , whose exertions on the Prisons Bill he well recollected, to remember that " the time to hit a blot is whenever and wherever you see it; " and that if they allowed this Dill to still further extend the faults which at that time the hon.

Member so manfully resisted they would fail in their duty. An earnest effort should be made to preserve and increase the shred of authority remaining to the Visiting Justices. The tendency of prison officialism upon the human mind was to lead to severity, and often, unconsciously, to cruelty. He asked the Committee to recollect that when the President of the Dublin College of Physicians attempted to resist the irregularities of prison rule ho was sent about his business. Prison officials did not want independent inspection; but no one could tell where the present system would lead, if the wholesome influence of the independent element was to be altogether excluded.

He hoped his hon. Friend would adhere to his endeavour to restore the civilizing and humanizing influence of the power of the Visiting Justices. Muntz was mistaken, as to the law of the land. It was hardly for that side of the House to find fault with the Prisons Bill , which was an ultra-Radical measure, and a bad one, too. He regretted that Act was ever passed. But it was now the law of the land. They had passed an Act establishing military prisons; and he would ask, were they to pass an Act in , and, before two years had elapsed, try to alter it in an indirect manner of this sort?

That was his objection to this clause. Member for Birmingham Mr. Muntz ; because the fact that a bad law had only been passed in was no reason why they should continuo that law in force a moment longer than could be helped. On the contrary, he thought they should try to improve it as soon as possible. He would suggest that, instead of the Visiting Justices having the authority, local representative bodies of districts in which gaols were situate should have the power.

If a gaol was situate in a borough, then the Town Council should have the power; and if the gaol was in the country, the Door Law Guardians should have the power of visiting these prisons, and report to the public outside if they saw anything amiss. The Visiting Justices had sold their birthright for a mess of pottage, in the shape of a reduction of local taxation. They had lost their authority with a reduction of taxation, and now they felt so sore on the point that inspection was a farce.

If a new class of Visitors, consisting of men of not so high a position, but greater energy, and as much intelligence as the existing Justices, was selected to visit the prisons and report to the public outside, he thought there would be an enormous advantage. The representative bodies to which he had referred—Town Councils and Poor Law Guardians—were, more or less, under the control of local public opinion.

They wished to stand well before the public who selected them; and, therefore, they were naturally disposed to show industry and intelligent energy by going into and inspecting these prisons.

He could not, four the life of him, understand what possible objection there could be to this suggestion. Seeing that the present system did not answer, that under it the Visiting Justices did not visit, he really could not admit that the Amendment of the hon. Sullivan filled all the conditions required. But the idea was rather better than the existing state of things; and in the absence of any better Amendment he was disposed to support it.

I propose to insert after " thereof," in page 70, line 12— And for securing facilities for efficacious inspection of such prisons by visiting justices of the district in the United Kingdom, and by persons occupying an analogous position elsewhere. Friend had fallen into an inaccuracy in using the words "visiting justices of the district.

The Court of Quarter Sessions appointed visiting magistrates for a particular prison. He thought it would be difficult to define what an " analogous " person was. As to the remarks made about the Prisons Act , he must say he thought it one of the grossest blunders ever committed by any Government.

Member would re-consider his Amendment, and make it more practical and useful. It would only involve the alteration of a word; and ho would also propose to leave out the words " analogous persons elsewhere," as he did not wish to mix up India with the present Amendment before the Committee. He wished to ask the Government why they objected to the proposal? It was not proposed even to alter the Act of They merely punctuated a certain portion of that Act, and desired to carry it out in a different way from what it had been carried out.

That was a fair thing. He should like to know how the Government provided for inde- pendent inspection in the Colonies?

The Committee was in the dark as to what was to be done in India and the Colonies. It would be necessary to alter several points in the Prisons Act , by several clauses in this Bill, to be proposed further on; and, therefore, the right hon.

Gentleman Mr. Cross need not be so terrified by this proposal. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman would understand, as they got on, that the clauses would do good. At present, he should like to hear the views of the Government. Member asked why the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, or himself, did not say anything upon this Amendment of his. The fact was, they had the same point brought before them in an Amendment moved some little time ago by the hon.

Member, and withdrawn by him at the suggestion of various hon. Gentlemen; and what was to be said on the point was said then.

The point now before the Committee was the same, only in somewhat different language, as was previously raised. In the course of the discussion, the Chairman had more than once pointed out to the hon. Member that lie was travelling rather beyond—[An hon. Member gave to them. The hon. Member said ho was sorry to put the Committee to inconvenience; but he was obliged to do it. The Government did not take that view. They were anxious to spare the Committee inconvenience; and having expressed their views they had not thought it necessary to go into the point over and over again.

The discussion ranged all over the whole subject of the Prisons Act of two years ago; and he did not think it was to the advantage of public convenience that they should enter into a discussion of that sort.

He was not able to accept the proposal of the hon. Gentleman; and he thought, if the Committee wished to make any progress with this Bill, they ought to come to a decision on a subject which had been fully discussed on all sides. List, No. Parliament had given power, by the Prisons Act of , to the Visiting Justices, and also to the Commissioners, to inflict with a cat or birch rod, on persons of the age of 18 strokes to the number of 36; and in the case of a person below the age of 18 the same number of strokes with a birch rod.

They had just had a very important admission made by the Home Secretary, that there should be a distinct difference between the treatment of prisoners committed for breaches of military discipline, and prisoners convicted of offences against the ordinary law of the land.

Now, ho had drawn his proposed Amendment, both because he was against the infliction of all corporal punishment, and because he thought that, following out the reasons of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, they were, at least, entitled to have a limitation as regarded prisoners convicted of breaches of discipline as distinct from persons convicted of offences of an immoral and fraudulent character.

There were two points to be considered. First of all, he was against all corporal punishment, because he thought if discipline within prisons could not be maintained without it, there must be something radically wrong in the general character of that discipline, and in the general character of the officers who administered it.

Secondly, he was against all corporal punishment for the class of prisoners convicted of breaches of military discipline. Therefore, he moved the omission, in line 15, after the words " punishment by," of the words " personal correction. He was about to move that "not exceeding 25 stripes" should be given in military prisons, and anticipated the assent of the Secretary of State for War to this limitation, because it would be certainly anomalous if, having made the sweeping reduction from 50 to 25 lashes in the Army and Navy, they were, in the secrecy of a prison, to allow a larger number to be inflicted.

Therefore, lie begged to move the insertion, after the words "personal correction," of the words " not exceeding 25 stripes. Sullivan appeared to assume that personal correction meant flogging; but he Sir William Harcourt did not take the same view. It might, of course, include flogging; but it might also mean a good many other things. He imagined that personal correction would include shot-drill, and other forms of punishment to be found in prison discipline.

It was well known that there were many forms of personal punishment, and, undoubtedly, flogging was one resorted to in the case of violent and refractory persons; but he apprehended it would not be inflicted, either on soldiers or anybody else without cause; and in the cases he had mentioned it was absolutely necessary.

He did not think the Amendment could be supported, except on the supposition that personal correction was necessarily flogging. He was prepared to accept the word " lashes " instead of "stripes. He besought the Committee to remember that the principle which had been laid down that evening—namely, that it was necessary to torture turbulent, noisy, and violent prisoners with corporal punishment, was utterly unfounded in fact. The practice of the prisons of Europe and America was against us.

It was a contradiction in terms to say that corporal punishment was necessary in prisons. However, after two days, he got a cat from the stores, and an official also telegraphed to Portsmouth for the cat used on board the Duke of Wellington. He had taken the measurements of both these cats, and found that, in length of handle, weight of handle, length of lash, and weight of lash, one was twice as great as the other.

He tried them on the carpet of the room at the Admiralty, and the effect of the large instrument was ten times that of the smaller. The only sealed cat at the Admiralty was a " marine cat; " a different thing altogether. It was about 18 inches long, made of thick whipcord, and each lash had nine knots, and there were nine lashes.

This cat would, if used with the lash downwards, inevitably make 81 holes in the back of the man upon whom it was used. However, it was explained by the official that it was used by drummer boys, who could not wield it so heavily as a man could the Admiralty cat. He felt sure that the sight of these cats would fill hon. Members with horror and disgust. He had himself entertained different views with regard to them; but from the time when he had seen them with his own eyes he had determined to vote against corporal punishment in every Division which might take place in the House.

Therefore, he considered that the Government were bound to afford an inspection of the cat, in order to allow hon. Members to see for themselves what they were asked to vote for. There is always a rigid structure or schedule that prisoners will have to follow. On the weekends, it is more recreation than work. On the brighter side, it is believed that food is better in military prisons than in civilian prisons. However, inmates are not allowed to take food back to their cell and will be searched to guarantee this.

It is also reported that meat is often undercooked. Unlike what you may have seen in movies, fights do not happen regularly in military prisons. If they do happen, they are broken up and dismissed fairly quickly. Also, they do not want to lose the opportunity to a decent rehab program over fights. Still, there are occasional fistfights.

Like military prisons, fistfights are not uncommon. But, for the most part, problematic inmates are kept away from one another. Thus, fights are minimized. If there are very bad and intense fights, the entire facility can be locked down. But they do not provoke one another like they are notoriously shown in movies. The military has a range of ways a prisoner can rehabilitate before leaving the prison system.

Since these prisoners will be stained with a dishonorable discharge, rehab programs are incredibly important and necessary for them to continue to get work. Typically, in fields that are undermanned or require a skilled trade. The military prison system will allow prisoners to train in hospitality, carpentry, auto repair, and culinary arts, among others.

Most prisoners greatly appreciate these rehabs. Civilian prisons are same same but different. They give certain inmates the chance to get out 9 months early through the Residential Drug Abuse Program.

Every detainee wears their uniform with a colour-coded badge attached to the front which denotes the seriousness of their offence. The first is a summary hearing where their commanding officer will have decided that detention is necessary. The second is through a military court, known as a court martial, which is governed by the Armed Forces Act A judge advocate presides over the court. The jury is called a board and is made up of a panel of officers and warrant officers.

If a member of the armed forces commits a serious crime like rape or murder, they could still be tried by a court martial depending on where and when the offence took place. The staff at the camp insist the focus here is on education with more than a dozen courses on offer including plumbing, welding, and animal welfare. But the centre's commandant, Lt Col Ian Logan, says that for many, the rehabilitation does not end once they walk away from the gates. In some cases, when they're here for short periods, we're reliant on the commanding officer of the detainee to continue to monitor and develop him from what he started here," he says.

The chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick, said he was impressed with the focus on rehabilitation from the outset, and the culture of high expectations. Although these announcements implied that Armed Forces leavers did not already consider prison work to be an attractive post-military career, and that military leadership was not already influential in the prison service, in fact many former Armed Forces personnel already work for HMPPS, G4S, Serco or Sodexo, with many in positions of significant authority.

Prison work, with its uniform, its hierarchical structure, concern for security, and status as Crown Service, has probably long appealed to Armed Forces leavers, who are thought to seek out such civilian uniformed services when choosing post-military careers. The initiatives led by Stewart and Truss beg the question — what does it actually mean to be an ex-military prison officer, or to bring military leadership styles into prisons? And what difference does this make to how our prisons operate, both for prison staff and for those in their care, whether Veterans or not?

To understand the past, present and potential future influence of the military on the prison service, a new research project addresses exactly these questions, by exploring the experience of current and former prison officers.