Out of his hat

Today the news is full of comments from the Lord Chief Justice. Apparently he thinks that history will judge that five year prison sentences are barbaric, along with ducking stools, and public flogging. This word "Barbaric" is often thrown at us. Hunting with dogs is "barbaric". Boxing is a "barbaric" sport. Execution is "barbaric". I looked the word up to make sure that I knew exactly what it meant.

Merriam Webster told me:

Of, relating to, or characteristic of barbarians.

Possessing or characteristic of a cultural level more complex than primitive savagery but less sophisticated than advanced civilization.

Marked by a lack of restraint - wild. Having a bizarre, primitive, or unsophisticated quality.

This was close to what I thought, but I looked up "Barbarian", just to be sure...

Of or relating to a land, culture, or people alien and usually believed to be inferior to another land, culture, or people.

Lacking refinement, learning, or artistic or literary culture.

So, what do we have here? I think the key word is uncivilized, but these definitions also point towards uneducated, and a culture perceived to be inferior in some way.

I'm not going to start arguing semantics, I'm just facinated by the words here. This judge seems to think that sending people to prison is uncivilised. I can only assume that he made this statement becasue he would like to see society become more civilised. Yet, shorter prison sentences would inevitably mean that more "Barbarians" remain at liberty to perorm their barbarous deads. Doesn't that have the reverse effect?

The cynic in me wonders if it was a coincidence that these comments come just days after the Home Office was forced to admit that prisons were overcrowded. I think judges have to be seen to consider prison to be a means of rehabilitation. But it can be shown quite clearly that prisons do not work as a deterant. One only has to look at reoffender figures. The public think of prison as a means of punishment, or revenge in some cases. Which is why we think that longer sentences are better.

In my view punishment achieves little. I think of prison as a way to keep the scum off the street for a while. From my point of view, longer sentences also work better. But prisons are expensive, and neither the public or the government like paying for them. So there is an argument for reducing prisoner numbers. I don't have a problem myself with the ultimate in barbarism, execution. There is a valid argument against executing people of course, you can't be sure never to make a mistake. Executing someone by mistake would be a terrible thing, but you can't get away from the fact that the world would be a better place without the likes of Huntley, Hindley, West, West, Shipman, Sutcliff, Brady, and others. Two of those have committed suicide in prison anyway, and I think Brady died didn't he? Collectively they cost us millions.