You are sentenced to… 3 years of church
Posted by Anna Bull on March 7th, 2007
The Glasgow Herald reports that parts of the prison system are going to be taken over by the Church of Scotland. This made me laugh, although it is on the face of it a perfectly reasonable suggestion, as church groups including the Church of Scotland already provide other social services such as schools and residential care for the elderly. You might argue that coping with criminals is a different cup of tea to dealing with children or little old ladies, but from my personal experience of dementia wards and primary schools, I think I would probably prefer the prisoners - quieter and less smelly.
However, this issue raises the wider question of what services the state should supply and what can be provided by outside agencies such as charities, religious groups or private companies. We’ve seen, tragically, what can happen when the latter takes over, but I would argue the state isn’t doing too great a job of prisons either. A few weeks ago I heard Anne Owers, the chief inspector of prisons, talk about how the current overcrowding is undoing all of the good education and rehabilitation work that had been starting to happen over the last few years. In between those two options, the church is starting to seem quite appealing; at least they won’t be trying to make a profit.
But what’s the deal with separation of church and state in this tradition-heavy country? I bet it’s one of those things like Lords reform which you’ve never got around to. Will there be proselytising in the prisons? Does anyone care, as long as we can send people to prison for ever-lengthening periods? And are we moving back to the 19th century ’system’ of welfare, which was mostly reliant on the church and private charity?
Good post. Privatisation of services such as transport seem invariably to lead to profit making over safety and service. As far as I can see most of the “great” transport systems of the world like the French and German train systems, run at a huge loss and rely heavily on government subsidy. So be it if people are prepared to shore up a service that is first class.
On prisions and welfare however, I think it is less problamatic that the Church lends a hand. After all, picking up those on the margins of society and supporting the poor was as you point out, a major mission of the Church in Victorian Britain and one might argue since its foundation as an institution. In a sector where the government is woefully ill-prepared to deal with the sheer number of prisoners who need rehabilitation, perhaps the Church can provide a spiritual and physical aid to an otherwise godless and oppressive prison environment. After all Rehab, not locking up, is the key.
So to James Bartholomew’s list of ‘things that stop a man being a criminal’ we need to add God. The list now stands at:
1. Old Age
2. Marriage
3. God
Awesome. God’ll definitely sort ‘em out.
On a more serious note: Will wrote ‘perhaps the Church can provide a spiritual and physical aid to an otherwise godless and oppressive prison environment. After all Rehab, not locking up, is the key.’
Are you suggesting conversion as a valid rehabilitation technique? Even if it were to work well in preventing reoffending it seems to be a dirty trick to pull on vulnerable people.
you’re insinuating that preaching religous teaching is dirty?
Hmmmm, no. And I suppose reflection on theological arguments and issues might well be helpful even without conversion. But I contend ‘preaching’, with its deserved connotations of one-sided and misleading argument, to the definition of a captive audience is indeed ‘dirty’.
What would you both say to a Muslim run prison? If Christianity can lend a hand why not other faiths?
That’s a very interesting idea Ed. I think in this instance the Church of Scotland counts as a registered charity (not entirely sure on that) so if a Muslim organisation had the same status then certainly Muslim-run prisons should be possible. But can you imagine the backlash! I think this goes to show how intensely Protestant (or at least Christian) Britain still is, despite all the talk of multiculturalism. 3% of the country is Muslim, but 70% (in the 2001 census I think it was) identify themselves as Christian even if hardly any of those practice it.
I think that any group who could run a prison competently should be encouraged to give it a go; it makes sense to farm out this kind of service to groups who would bring more than just a custodial role to it.
My problem is with one-sided religious preaching to prisoners whatever the faith of those doing the preaching. Obviously ‘any group who could run a prison competently should be encouraged to give it a go’ so long as they aren’t preaching to the inmates. My contention is that it definitely ‘makes sense to farm out this kind of service to groups who would bring more than just a custodial role to it’ but that religious preaching isn’t appropriate to fill the gap between custody and rehabilitation.
Providing prisoners with the facilities necessary to practice their religion intuitively seems to be very strong duty. My worry is that Will’s assertion that one church might ‘provide a spiritual and physical aid to an otherwise godless and oppressive prison environment’ and his apparent support for ‘preaching religous teaching’ in prisons suggests that what is being suggested is an unbalanced emphasis on educating prisoners about one particular theological conclusion in those prisons run by supporters of that conclusion.
I hope it is clear that I would be equally opposed to a prison with an atheist conversion misson as to one with a Muslim or a Christian mission to ‘instill an ethos’ with its connotations of preaching in favour of at least the existence of a deity and almost certainly subscription to some form of organised religion.