Prisons work with the physical reality of enclosure - that is largely to do with the plain and simple fact that most of the people in them do not come out to bother the general public - the ones who do are the hard done by warders and custodians who work there and who are the real heros of prisons.

Lets face it - criminals get what they deserve- confinement for the safety of the community. Too much time is spent fiddling with the process of that incarceration - when if they had the simple sense to accept - they are their because of their own worst efforts - if anything we are paying too much heed to their "needs" and "expectations" and not enouhg to the needs and expectation of their surviving innocent victims (those on the outside of the prison bars).

So the author claims the prison system is not "open" - well if we did that the buggers would run away and most likely run amok - better it is a closed system - without journalistic oversight - their is a system of review and inspectorates overseeing the process - imperfect maybe - but better than having a bunch of (for example) pro-Corby type writers turning any minor incident into a three ring publicity circus.

It is clear that many people in the ocmmunity who do not understand or have the clear facts as to who fills our prisons. The poor, the mentally ill, women and Indigenous. High majority, if not all, have been victims of crime as well. Prison is a reflection as to what is happening in our own communities. We are in seious trouble then. Prison is about abuse of power and allowing others to get away with criminal behaviour.

Secrecy breeds abuse and if you are happy with that abuse do not complain when people are released and commit more harm in your community. This is not what I want and I sure you do not either.

If we want less crime we need to support all people in our communities not just a token few. Stop the philosophical drive of the us and them - be aware as to how we all paly into this and of course harm others or believe that they are different to us - not human beings.

Prisons do not work they ensure more crime will be committed and if you want to abuse people whilst they are in prison expect the crimes to be more violent.

Why is it that you want prison officers to get away with criminal behavour but want others (those in prison) to be locked away with no voice. Your line of thought does not make sense, considering most women are in prison for non violent crimes.

No one is interested in a 3 ring circus what we are interested in is less crime - the same as you. We are interested in transparency and hoensty.

Media can assist this process by being able to reflect the truth. If we don't know the truth as to what is hapening in prison we obvously believe that people in prison are not human being who deserve there human rigths to be adhered too. scary thought.
DK

It is clear that many people in our community do not understand or have the facts as to who fills our prisons. The poor, the mentally ill, women and Indigenous - thats who. High majority, if not all, have been victims of crime. Prison is a reflection as to what is happening in our own communities so we are in seious trouble. Prison is about abuse of power and allowing others to get away with criminal behaviour.

Secrecy breeds abuse and if you are happy with that do not complain when people are released and commit more harm in our community. This is not what I want and I am sure you do not either.

If we want less crime we need to support all people in our communities not just a token few. Stop the ideological divide of the us and them - be aware as to how we all play into this and of course harm others or believe that they are different to us - not human beings like you and me.

Prisons do not work they ensure more crime is committed - forget the catch phrase of governments of community safety. If you want to abuse people whilst they are in prison expect more crime.

Why is it that you want prison officers to get away with criminal behavour but want others (those in prison) to be locked away with no voice or scrutiny?? Your line of thought does not make sense, considering most women are in prison for non violent crimes.

No one is interested in a 3 ring circus what we are interested in is less crime - the same as you. We are interested in transparency and honesty.

Media can assist this process by being able to reflect the truth. If we don't know the truth as to what is hapening in prison we obviously believe that people in prison are not human being who deserve there human rigths to be adhered too. very scary thought.
DK

Col's line of thought rarely makes sense, except perhaps to those who share his extreme right views of society.

Anybody who knows anything at all about our prison system knows that it simply doesn't work. It is a brutal system with a brutal culture and history that has unfortunately been part of 'Australian' culture since the First Fleet. The majority of contemporary prisoners are either fine defaulters or have been convicted of drug-related crimes, and invariably emerge from prison as much more hardened criminals than when they entered the system. Many of them are mentally ill, certainly by the time they are released.

That incarceration is such a growth industry in this country is an appalling indictment of our legislative, judicial, medical and penal systems. We should be ashamed of ourselves.

Bernie Matthews series of articles on the state of prisons in Queensland should be applauded. The kinds of prisons we have and the ways that prisoners are treated are a direct reflection of the 'outside' society. If there is no justice in prisons, then we cannot expect any on the outside. As Matthews has said it is usually the case of 'out of sight, out of mind' and the lack of transparency and ease of access (by journalists or community volunteers)has exacerbated this in Queensland. It is a sad reflection that most people don't care about prisons until they, or one of their family members, end up in one.

Another great article by someone who knows what they are talking about (Bernie that is). Its not only the first commentators line of thought that doesn't make sense, but the whole Queensland prison system. Do you think that you can say something is working and achieving the goal of community safety when we have to allocate $231 million over the next few years to accommodate all of the "success story's" that get released from Queenslands prisons only to return a short time later.

To say that it is OK to have a system that repeatedly fails the community and establishes a "killing field" within our own backyard makes you wonder who benefits from more and more prison beds? Somebody must be and it isn't prisoners. Wonder who it could be?

Garra "Col's line of thought rarely makes sense, except perhaps to those who share his extreme right views of society."

I love it - "extreme right" - just the other day I was called a "leftie libertarian" and in The Age forum to boot (- in that case regarding my view on abortion) - keep it coming - it is easier for the trough feeders to throw out their snide remarks without a clue as to the origins or experiences of other writers.

Maybe, if you asked "What does Col Rouge know about prisons and if he has or does work within or for one" you might be surprised by what you would find - but it is so much easier for you judgemental dullards to throw out cheap lines whilst simultaneously forgetting the criminals incarcerated within prison walls (including Bernie Matthews) are or were their for a reason - in his case armer robbery - others of us have always managed to avoid such violent and anti-social behaviour in our daily pursuits.

Whilst you do not appreciate my view - let me assure you - it is commonly held one and is backed up by a right to exercise a vote - whether you like it or not!

I'm sure that nobody who is familiar with Col's rantings in this forum would be at all surprised if he worked as a screw in a prison.

Supporting abortion doesn't make Col any more of a "leftie" (whatever that means) than supporting cultural and religious tolerance makes others of us Muslim.

Ah Garra – think what you like about me – write what you want – I will take comfort in the words of my heroine, Margaret Thatcher, who said "I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

And No – I do not work as a "screw" in a prison – but I do presently have a consulting contract to help in the management of one (sorry to be obtuse but I do not want to identify which one) –
As for ‘Screws’ they are the people the state pays to keep the "barbarians" inside the wire.

That you have no greater regard for their dangerous and difficult job indicates the paucity of your knowledge – a shortfall supported by every wannabe fruitcake expression which you repeatedly humiliate yourself with by bringing to this forum.

Sorry Col but you are way off this time. If we allow the brutalisation of prisoners we make the bad worse. It's that simple. The choice is this. Do we just want to punish those who commit crimes or make sure they won't do so again. If it's the second then, in the majority of cases, prison is the last place we want to send these guys. It is a FACT that prisoners learn how to be more successful criminals in jail. How? By comparing their techniques with those around them.
I prefer something that was tried in the USA. A convicted thief had a tracker secured to his wrist. At the sound of it beeping he had to report in within 5 minutes or be sent to a maximum security prison. Trouble was he was only allowed to be in one of two places, home or work & they could tell from the phone & the tracker exactly where he was calling from. Not only that but a portion of his pay was deducted to be given to his victim. Result: He was detered from reoffending & was spared brutalisation. Makes sense to Me.

Home detention is a good idea and is available in Australia to some who have already been convicted and meet certain crirteria - community safety issues. Whilst it does remove the prison brutalization problem and is certainly cheaper it doesn’t take account of homeless people who make up a significant proportion of prison populations – you need a home and family or friends to act as sponsor – if not it’s back to the big house.

Even if you could get around this with hostels and the like there is a danger in making it a wholesale alternative: it provides an unlimited resource for the warehousing of prisoners!

Ok, I’ll accept your invitation - “What does Col Rouge know about prisons…?”

Without asking you to defend the whole prison system, I am interested in your comment: “better it is a closed system - without journalistic oversight…” Clearly, if the allegations in this article are at all to be taken seriously, then the “system of review and inspectorates overseeing the process…”, has failed.

The publicity circus possibility you point to is valid, and nobody would consider it reasonable for example to give A Current Affair their own studio within one of our jails or hospitals for a reality television / news / doco / ratings bonanza but the other extreme of little or no transparency, and in the circumstances of alleged murders, seems a particularly difficult position to defend.

The fact that prison staff have understandably a “dangerous and difficult job” seems to me to be a further reason for transparency. Surely their welfare, safety and state of mind in an environment that is widely recognized as brutal, depressing and extremely stressful is a concern in itself in addition to the way it impacts on prisoners and should also not be hidden from public scrutiny.

Personally, I think that it's pretty obvious why our prisons have such a woeful record with respect to rehabilitation, if people with attitudes such as Col publishes here ad nauseam are involved in advising their management.

Surprise, surprise - a self-professed management consultant to a prison doesn't want scrutiny of any kind over what goes on inside. Tell us, Col - it wouldn't be a private prison that you sell your talents to, would it?

Hutlen - The embedding of journalists into frontline positions in the Iraq war, IMHO was a reckless and stupid act – for the reason of skewed perspective of what is “normal” in an “abnormal” set of circumstances.

Journalists have free right to express whatever view they like, regardless of their experience or understanding. When they start to presume someone who is incarcerated for serious offences is going to honour the ideals of “truth and justice” to the same degree as the people trained, employed and vetted to oversee their “stay” or the journalist his self, then just like being at the front line of battle, he is most likely interpreting everything through a skewed perspective.

I would suggest – just like any other process, errors of action do happen (be it incarcerating prisoners or making widgets),– but prison inspectorate are their to act on behalf of the public as the oversight – just as “Internal Affairs” act in police forces. These internal service entities are not responsible to local prison management.

I would think that journalists should themselves be held to some standard of “ethic” before they can expect to intercede in matters beyond their ambit of authority, some journo’s being notorious for the slipperiness of their words – the paparazzi, as examples of journalistic “integrity” can hardly crawl when it comes to professing any standard of behaviour – so – journalists need to clean up their own act before they start crusading to fix the world and criticise other professions.

I would further note – not all staff working inside many prisons are custodial staff – they include clinicians of various disciplines and are augmented by welfare agency staff and charity volunteers – (not motivated by the desire for a headline), all having been cleared by police checks on their background.

garra – playing the person not the issue – ignored - beyond I am not prepared to declare whether I work for a private or public run prison or to be specific on any matter which may identify my role beyond what I have already disclosed.

Col. Without journo’s and writers this forum wouldn’t exist. If journo’s had access to some of the real info beforehand (Iraq) or were able to enable more awareness of it, ‘some’ of the ‘swinging’ pro war may not have been so ‘pro’ or at least had the benefit of access to more than just the mainstream media’s “skewed perspective”. But this is the stuff of other threads, “cleansed” hard drives, “official secrecy” and sbs docos.

Yes, journo’s are a pain, especially when they might be onto something, especially in jails and similar places. We’re not talking about “errors of action”, we are talking about murder.

If the inspectorates’ role is similar to that of Internal Affairs, and murders are still occurring, and on CCT tapes, and while officers of the Ombudsman’s office are walking around, perhaps the role of journo’s is more now a necessity than it ever has been – and of course it is – in fact it usually is whenever legislation disallows it. People are sent to jail to deny them their freedom – fair enough, but they are not sent there for the denial of “the ideals of truth and justice” albeit nobody really knows what those ideals are. But the fact that they might be subjected to some unofficial second tier punishment environment which can include the loss of their very lives seems “abnormal” indeed; it flies in the face of anything resembling an ideal and surely makes for a criminal justice system that benefits very few.

You say that “criminals get what they deserve”. Maybe you’re right but how do we know and if journo’s are no good for that, what the hell are they good for? Keep at it Bernie.

Bernie Matthews’ article should shock readers. It should be read as a warning to the community. Just as the Bali Bombers, Washington Sniper, and the Snickers Bar Killer say very clearly.

If we don’t listen to all members of our communities they will shout at us. And no matter what Bully Bush or the local prison governor do they are powerless. Honest people admit that fact.

To persuade the public that higher security or more brutal institutional responses will win, is the ultimate lie by those who lose their power by the truth. Their responses will ensure that the suicide bombers of Baghdad are only months away from the streets of Brisbane and Sydney. And we will all cower behind security fences provided by big business working with government. Our complacent civilized society is under dire threat.

The spectre of Schapelle, Hicks, and the refugees doesn’t make many proud. And the $70,000 bill per person per year for 23,000 prisoners in Australia ensures our community services don’t get support. Increasing exponentially while creating crime in the process.

The only way forward is a community response. Mentoring and restorative justice. Lose the wars on drugs and terrorism and accept the entitlement to dignity of all humans so we can all survive.

Slavery and capital punishment were abolished after a long struggle. Our penal colony origin gives us the authority to make an offering to the world.

The dungeon is where it starts. Demand our right to meet those humans inside and hear their stories. Then the victims will be acknowledged both outside and in. And the dialogue begins.

Media and community in!

Brett Collins
JUSTICE ACTION

Giving credence to the convicted is like letting the alcoholics run a brewery or junkies the dispensary.

No one is put into prison as a first option - this contemporary society bends over backward to avoid it - with non-custodial sentences and fines the preferred option - far from the old deportation for stealing a loaf of bread.

If you end up in prison it is because you are considered too dangerous to freely mix in society (convicted culpable drivers excepted - they are the only ones who ever show any remorse for their actions) - that reasoning is partly due to $70,000 pa bill for each person incarcerated (per Brett Collins post).

So before anyone with an ounce of sense starts to wonder at the "veracity" of claims made by criminals (and how their plight has nothing to do with them but is a fault of the "system" of which they are victims), first canvas the prison custodial and inspectorate staff - their record for honesty has fewer blemishes and more credibility than that of ex-bank robbers, scam artists, drug dealers, murderers, paedophiles and thugs.

I think we were only talking about a starting point Col, you know, not the right to run the prison, just the right to not be killed thingy!

You are suggesting that all people in jail are ‘dangerous’ – except for convicted culpable drivers – who are also the ‘only’ ones who show remorse?

And what about all the short term, less serious crime people and what about prisoners who haven’t been convicted but are waiting for a hearing - are they all ‘dangerous’? - there’s plenty of them.

“Veracity” of claims indeed.

I am suggesting all people sentenced and in gaol (culpable drivers excepted) are a social danger of some sort, since if they were not they would be on a community based sentence or some other punishment which was cheaper for the state to administer.

Your point, re-remand prisoners – different regimes apply to remand prisoners versus sentenced prisoners.

“Veracity of claims indeed”? – what is your point – or are you quoting me because you like the words?

Col's response is consistent with his previous posts that identify him as someone with a vested interest in incarcerating as many people as possible, not to mention his more ideological rants that verge on fascism.

He conveniently ignores the fact that a large proportion of prisoners are fine defaulters, i.e. people who were given non-custodial sentences but have not paid their fines. Clearly, these people were not considered to be dangerous to others by the courts, but have been imprisoned for economic reasons.

The other major category of people whom he loves to imprison are those who have broken stupid drug laws that don't work on any criteria, and who are only a danger to themselves, if anything.

If we removed the fine defaulters and drug offenders from our prisons, then I daresay the demand for Col's 'services' to prison management in this country would decrease. Perhaps he could then apply for a job at Guantanamo Bay, or Abu Ghraib, where I'm sure he'd find himself in the company of like-minded people.

Yes I do like the words and particularly because they demonstrate that I was having great difficulty believing all of your claims. My point is Col, in this thread you speak from a position of authority and some of the language in your previous posts reinforces widely held and grossly inaccurate community perceptions of all prisoners as dangerous, unremorseful barbarians.

I regard your responses of particular importance in this discussion as many will interpret the situation in prisons through the perspective that you alone have to offer.

On another occasion you might wish to discuss with me the issue of unnecessary incarceration canvassed by garra or perhaps even ‘social danger’ but in the meantime, have you any views on Mentoring and restorative justice

Col, you are certainly entitled to your views but I think you may have missed the point of my article. Are you suggesting prison deaths should continue to be covered up by prison authorities and allowed to continue unabated? You are critical of prisoners per se but I might remind you that 22-year-old Scott Topping was serving time for $1200 in unpaid fines and had 3 weeks left to serve when he was raped and murdered. Linda Jane Baker was doing time for driving without a licence when she died. Are you suggesting those two prisoners were too dangerous to mix in society? As for giving credence to the convicted I think it is the published facts that should be considered before aspersions are cast upon the writer. You suggest prison custodial and inspectorate staff have impeccable records for honesty with fewer blemishes and more credibility than that of ex-bank robbers etc etc. The 1971 Inquiry into the Victorian prison, the 1977-78 Nagle Royal Commission into the NSW prison system and the Kennedy Report into the Queensland prison system would not agree with your assertions. And those Inquiries included thousands of pages of sworn testimony as opposed to personal views expressed in debate. Might I suggest you read them some time. In March 1978 I gave sworn tesimony to the Nagle Royal Commission about the NSW prison system. At that time I was classified as an intractable prisoner confined inside the Katingal Special Security Unit but His Honour never doubted the veracity of my evidence nor was my credibility attacked. I cannnot say the same for the then Commissioner of Corrective Services, Wal McGeechan, or his subordinates who were scathingly criticised. McGeechan was sacked as a result of the Royal Commission. Credibility comes in many shapes and forms Col. There are credible prisoners and ex-prisoners just as there are discredited prison officials.

On the subject of credibility Col I thought you might like to ponder these facts: In 1985 the acting Superintendent of Parklea prison (the then most secure maximum security prison in the southern hemisphere) was arrested with his subordinate and charged and convicted for supplying heroin to the prisoners he was entrusted to guard. A senior doctor in charge of the NSW Prison Medical Service was convicted of supplying drugs to prisoners in return for homosexual trysts in his office at Long Bay. A senior Victorian prison guard, Heather Parker, supplied explosives to Peter Gibb and Archie Butterly so they could blow their way out prison. She then assisted in their escape and was recaptured with Gibb after a shootout with police.In Queensland another prison Superintendent was sacked for stealing and supplying drugs. Two senior prison guards at a privately run Queensland prison were convicted of fraud. A Queensland prison psychologist implemented a sex offenders program in prison and then proceeded to harvest the crop of prisoners for his own sexual gratification. He too was convicted. In 1994 prison officials at SDL CC refused protection to David Smith and then let other prisoners know of his intentions. He was murdered within hours but one of the prison officials who denied Smith protection has since been promoted to a senior role within the Qld system. If a similar situation occurred outside prison the official charge would be 'Conspiracy to murder' or 'Accessory before the fact fact to murder'. In another case Qld prison authorities arranged parole for a prisoner after he agreed to become an informer but as soon as he was released he went on a serial rape spree covering two States.One wonders if prison officials in that case would be guilty of 'accessory after the fact' to the rapes he committed because they let him out? Most of these stories never appear in mainstream media simply because they are/were politically sensitive and prison authorities maintain media clampdowns for that purpose. I think credibility should be based on substantiated facts don't you Col? If nothing else, society deserves that.

Col Rouge wouldn't last a week in SDL with his attitude,lucky for him they put the dozers through the sh--hole.On the downside CC transferred a lot of the screws to Woodford.Bernie Matthews is a man who has been through the system from early age and emerged a better person by his own efforts not because of government policy or prison authorities.Bernies papers should be read by these so called experts then something might be done.By the way Col got any idea how much the new gaols at Gatton and Townsville are going to cost the taxpayer that money would be better spent on rehab. programs. Keep up the good work Bernie