Columns

Nick Gavey argues the affirmative while Kurt Purdon argues the negative.
Affirmative

I strongly oppose supplying prisoners with bottles of Moet, caviar, 600-count Egyptian cotton sheets, or personal shopping services. However if “luxuries” mean things that every other New Zealander takes for granted, then yes, we should provide prisoners with a minimum standard of living. People who claim that prisons are “luxurious” have never been to prison. Generally speaking, prisons are hopeless, depressing, dangerous places. If anything, prisons in New Zealand should be made more humane, and not less so. Features of modern jails such as under-floor heating, libraries, gymnasiums, and televisions are not “luxuries”. Providing prisoners with a basic standard of living is a sensible approach that promotes productive reintegration while in prison. Denying prisoners things like properly heated cells or the opportunity for exercise is born out of a motive of punitive retribution. Self-righteous blowhards like Garth McVicar need to control their desire for revenge on New Zealand’s criminal population. Instead of reflexively arguing for the most degrading prison experience possible, it is worth considering how our treatment of prisoners affects recidivism and what it says about our society. 
 
To take a specific case like under-floor heating; this is simply the most cost effective and easiest to maintain method of heating a large area that is used 24 hours per day. Individual heaters in every cell are more prone to vandalism and much harder to maintain. Or take gymnasiums. Giving prisoners the ability to constructively channel their physical energy makes all the sense in the world. Caged, restless prisoners are more likely to be violent and create a dangerous prison environment for other inmates and guards. Or take libraries. Many inmates in our jails are poorly educated with dim post-prison career prospects. Allowing education in prison, of some sort or another, is all win.
 
We could go on and individually justify why it makes sense to give prisoners food, blankets, individual cells, sanitation facilities, or any other humane provision. But I suspect that all the arguments about reintegration, positive growth in prison, and human rights will fall on deaf ears for those who only want to see prisoners punished as harshly as possible, and have no concern for their status as human beings or New Zealanders. All the evidence in the world does not seem to be able to convince certain people that locking more and more people up in tiny cells or shipping containers, or sow crates are not a solution to crime. If it were, then America would be the safest place on the planet and Norway would be the most dangerous. If we treat inmates like society hates them and has rejected them, then inmates will act like they hate society and reject it. Prison shouldn’t be a cruel place that produces cruel men. We do need to deter crime. But we also need to give criminals a chance to turn their lives around and make a fresh start.
 

Negative

If Mr Gavey thinks that the average New Zealander “takes for granted” gymnasiums, under-floor heating and plasma screen televisions, then he is seriously out of touch with the conditions people find themselves in, in this country.
 
I’m going to write about two issues in this column. The first of which is a taxpayer’s rights issue, and the second is the criminal welfare/recidivism issue. Firstly, prisoners are criminals; they have broken the law. Therefore, I completely reject that criminals should get any luxuries that many law-abiding people in our society do not have access to. There are many people in our society that struggle from week to week to feed their kids and pay their bills. They can’t afford to buy a television, they can’t afford a gym membership, and many can’t even afford to heat their homes. It is simply not fair that these people who go to work, pay their taxes and follow the law are having their hard-earned money go towards the luxuries of people that have broken society’s rules. Standards of living in prisons should in no way be on a par or better than the standards of living that many law-abiding citizens face every day. Those that follow the law deserve more than those that don’t.
 
Secondly, on the issue of recidivism, Mr Gavey misses the point completely. The debate is not an issue on the provision of humane conditions. I agree that prisoners require beds, food, sanitation and safety from violence. However, are luxuries like television and a free gym membership really compulsory? We need prisons to be humane, I do not refute this. What I do disagree with is the notion that recidivism is magically reduced by the presence of a television. In fact, if Mr Gavey had his way, people that committed crimes (which are disproportionately low-income) would find that they enjoy a higher standard of living in prison compared to out. Becoming a prisoner would now mean gaining access to a television, a warm home and a free gym. Not to mention the fact that the stress of paying your bills and feeding your kids is now gone, the government will sort it out for you! What happens is a tipping of the scales, encouraging people to seek the security and familiarity of prison. This happens more than you think, especially with those that have been in prison for longer periods of time who find that life outside the bars is much harder than life inside.
 
Denying criminals luxuries is not criminal-bashing and it doesn’t mean we hate or reject them. It simply means that there are things in life that they do not deserve. It means that we shouldn’t treat law-breaking citizens better than law-abiding, and it means that when people go to prison they have an incentive to not go back.