Do prisoners deserve an education?
On Friday, the BBC published an article discussing the latest "scandalous" idea from infamous Conservative politician, Michael Gove. The idea? That the education prisoners receive must be "overhauled"- in short, improved, with the hope that a better education would lead to the prisoners becoming worthwhile contributors to society, rather than them just reoffending upon their release.
Now, usually, I think Michael Gove's views on education are utter rubbish. Whilst I was still at school, he talked about longer school days and less time off- and for a whole multitude of reasons, these idea's just seemed appalling. But I can't help thinking that a better education for prisoners is, in fact, a very good idea and definitely something that should be put into place as soon as possible.
Before you hear my own opinion, you may wish to read the original article here.
£145 million pounds is spent every year on prison education. This is a huge amount- and they receive it all for free! In my opinion, I think that this is totally unfair. But I still think it is important that prisoners receive an education of some kind, especially given that more than one in five prisoners have been found to need help with English and Maths- basic skills that should be taught from a young age, and that most of us take for granted to have as part of our everyday knowledge. However, to me, this statistic speaks volumes- if that large of an amount of criminals have education problems, does this mean that a large portion of criminals have not had the best education they could have received? Did a lack of proper education lead them to offend in the first place? And if so, will being given a better education whilst in prison prevent them from reoffending? I can't help but feel that yes, it will.
A lack of education can often lead to less job prospects, let alone professional career prospects, and Britain all to often sees young people hanging around the streets, getting in to trouble. Yet had these people had an education and gone on to college or university, gotten a good job and started a career, would they still have offended? In my opinion, the probability of it happening decreases dramatically.
But what can we do about the cost? Is it fair for tax payers to pay for a good education for criminals? No, it is not. I believe in a good education for them, but they have to pay. Be that their family paying for it for them whilst they're inside, or they have a student loan scheme similar to that of university, where they pay it back monthly once they use their new education to obtain a job.
Courses run by prisoners typically cost £250 a course, which is absolutely nothing compared to University fees (or the fees of the average prison stay, which racks up around £37,648!), so it's not much for family members to pay, or inmates themselves. This means that we would not have to wait until they had a job earning over £21,000 like university students, but rather they could pay it as soon as they started to work.
We already know that education prevents reoffending upon release. Prisoners who had decided to receive an education whilst inside were 7% less likely to reoffend than prisoners who didn't. Whilst this is only a small number, a better, more substantial education could definitely boost this number up. American prisons make sure that their inmates receive a good education, especially for younger inmates who should still be in school, and it is my own opinion that we should follow that example within our own prisons here in the UK.
Should the educated then be able to earn release? Michael Gove has suggested that prisoners can "earn" their release, and have reduced sentences if they work hard and earn qualifications. This idea is similar to a prison abroad I once read about, in New Zealand I believe, where for every book a prisoner reads and writes a review on, their sentence is reduced by a day or two. This is something I do not agree with. The prisoners still did a punishable offence, and so need to complete that punishment to understand that their actions will not be treated lightly and that what they did was indeed very, very wrong. However, if they have these qualifications when they leave prison at the end of their sentence, this is beneficial to them and to society, as they can then contribute rather than cause trouble, and hopefully choose not to reoffend again.
Most criminals are nothing but criminals and will go nowhere in life. This is a common belief among most people, but it is not true. I regularly work with prisoners who are coming to the end of their sentences, and so need to be reintroduced back into society, and all of them have aspirations. I've met aspiring musicians, people with business ideas, people who want careers in this, that and the other. And its all they will talk about with you- their big ideas, their future, the happiness they will feel when they are back with their families.
Obviously, I am not so naive to know that this isn't the case with all criminals. There are plenty who will go on to do nothing, just bum around and probably end up back inside again- and that is why they need an education. To try and prevent that, and to provide them with career goals and ambitions instead.
They don't deserve an education? Well no, maybe not. But they're going to be released at the end of their sentence either way- so wouldn't you rather that they were released with an education and less likely to offend? Or would you rather they came back into society ready to carry on with the life of crime? I know which option I prefer.
Obviously, this is a very broad debate that could go on and on and on, and it is very complex, with questions of morals and politics and so on. But from my point of view, an education to help someone, to prevent them from offending when they're going to be released (and they will be released) is nothing but a good idea. If it provides them with a better life and stops them from being a nuisance to society and a weight on the tax payers shoulders, if it protects us from them endangering us again in future, why not?
Love from,
Florence Grace
I would love to hear everyone else's views, ideas and opinions, so please leave them in the comments below! However, please do not be nasty or rude; I am happy to have "civil debates" but no arguing! :)
Now, usually, I think Michael Gove's views on education are utter rubbish. Whilst I was still at school, he talked about longer school days and less time off- and for a whole multitude of reasons, these idea's just seemed appalling. But I can't help thinking that a better education for prisoners is, in fact, a very good idea and definitely something that should be put into place as soon as possible.
Before you hear my own opinion, you may wish to read the original article here.
£145 million pounds is spent every year on prison education. This is a huge amount- and they receive it all for free! In my opinion, I think that this is totally unfair. But I still think it is important that prisoners receive an education of some kind, especially given that more than one in five prisoners have been found to need help with English and Maths- basic skills that should be taught from a young age, and that most of us take for granted to have as part of our everyday knowledge. However, to me, this statistic speaks volumes- if that large of an amount of criminals have education problems, does this mean that a large portion of criminals have not had the best education they could have received? Did a lack of proper education lead them to offend in the first place? And if so, will being given a better education whilst in prison prevent them from reoffending? I can't help but feel that yes, it will.
A lack of education can often lead to less job prospects, let alone professional career prospects, and Britain all to often sees young people hanging around the streets, getting in to trouble. Yet had these people had an education and gone on to college or university, gotten a good job and started a career, would they still have offended? In my opinion, the probability of it happening decreases dramatically.
But what can we do about the cost? Is it fair for tax payers to pay for a good education for criminals? No, it is not. I believe in a good education for them, but they have to pay. Be that their family paying for it for them whilst they're inside, or they have a student loan scheme similar to that of university, where they pay it back monthly once they use their new education to obtain a job.
Courses run by prisoners typically cost £250 a course, which is absolutely nothing compared to University fees (or the fees of the average prison stay, which racks up around £37,648!), so it's not much for family members to pay, or inmates themselves. This means that we would not have to wait until they had a job earning over £21,000 like university students, but rather they could pay it as soon as they started to work.
We already know that education prevents reoffending upon release. Prisoners who had decided to receive an education whilst inside were 7% less likely to reoffend than prisoners who didn't. Whilst this is only a small number, a better, more substantial education could definitely boost this number up. American prisons make sure that their inmates receive a good education, especially for younger inmates who should still be in school, and it is my own opinion that we should follow that example within our own prisons here in the UK.
Should the educated then be able to earn release? Michael Gove has suggested that prisoners can "earn" their release, and have reduced sentences if they work hard and earn qualifications. This idea is similar to a prison abroad I once read about, in New Zealand I believe, where for every book a prisoner reads and writes a review on, their sentence is reduced by a day or two. This is something I do not agree with. The prisoners still did a punishable offence, and so need to complete that punishment to understand that their actions will not be treated lightly and that what they did was indeed very, very wrong. However, if they have these qualifications when they leave prison at the end of their sentence, this is beneficial to them and to society, as they can then contribute rather than cause trouble, and hopefully choose not to reoffend again.
Most criminals are nothing but criminals and will go nowhere in life. This is a common belief among most people, but it is not true. I regularly work with prisoners who are coming to the end of their sentences, and so need to be reintroduced back into society, and all of them have aspirations. I've met aspiring musicians, people with business ideas, people who want careers in this, that and the other. And its all they will talk about with you- their big ideas, their future, the happiness they will feel when they are back with their families.
Obviously, I am not so naive to know that this isn't the case with all criminals. There are plenty who will go on to do nothing, just bum around and probably end up back inside again- and that is why they need an education. To try and prevent that, and to provide them with career goals and ambitions instead.
They don't deserve an education? Well no, maybe not. But they're going to be released at the end of their sentence either way- so wouldn't you rather that they were released with an education and less likely to offend? Or would you rather they came back into society ready to carry on with the life of crime? I know which option I prefer.
Obviously, this is a very broad debate that could go on and on and on, and it is very complex, with questions of morals and politics and so on. But from my point of view, an education to help someone, to prevent them from offending when they're going to be released (and they will be released) is nothing but a good idea. If it provides them with a better life and stops them from being a nuisance to society and a weight on the tax payers shoulders, if it protects us from them endangering us again in future, why not?
Love from,
Florence Grace
I would love to hear everyone else's views, ideas and opinions, so please leave them in the comments below! However, please do not be nasty or rude; I am happy to have "civil debates" but no arguing! :)
Comments
Post a Comment