© Copyright 1995-2023 Brahma Kumaris
World Spiritual University
Week in and week out we hear football managers making the claim that such and such a goal shouldn’t have been allowed as a player was offside. However, this has taken on a new and very public slant in recent weeks.
Two well-known male television presenters, apparently believing their microphones had been switched off, were recorded making disparaging remarks about a female assistant referee, related to women’s apparent lack of understanding of the offside rule. A headline that followed read “Commentators in Sexist Rant.” Another commentator suggested that, “Comments belong in the dark ages. Sexism is as bad as racism.”
What has this to do with offender management? Perhaps nothing currently; you tell me.
Standards of Behaviour - Acceptable or Not?
Exactly a decade ago, the Spirituality in Prison Group hosted a residential seminar, Breaking the Cycle, for people who worked within offender management. The seminar looked at the different cycles we find ourselves locked into. The example cited in the flier suggested that a person showing disrespect for another will receive the same in return, so creating a cycle of disrespect … unless one person decides to break that cycle.
During a panel discussion, a serving prison governor spoke with great honesty about her own experiences within the Service. She talked of the sexist attitudes and systematic bullying she had experienced in three different prisons from her peers, her managers, and by the prison officers. Her contribution opened a floodgate of feelings and comment that revealed the magnitude of bullying experienced, at all levels by many of the people present.
Someone spoke of ‘accepted standards of behaviour by staff that are so wrong.’ Another drew attention to the fact that ‘prison staff are trained to treat prisoners in a humane and respectful way because that’s how we want them to behave in society. However, there is a need to treat all staff with decency and dignity, too.’ It was suggested that ‘bullying is endemic and that most people involved are not aware that they are doing it – it has become part of the culture.’
So, if it still exists, what do we need to do to break the cycle? Is it about revisiting core values of the Service, namely decency and dignity?
Decency and Dignity
Dignity is a state that emanates from one’s core being whilst decency relates to the quality of our interactions with others. Therefore, my dignity is not dependent on anything external but on my own inner state of awareness. This is why, any time we become disconnected from our inner world, we loose contact with our values and therefore with our dignity.
Fluctuation of that inner sense of worth, value and dignity can, and does, easily occur. It may be that we become drawn away from our dignity by becoming caught up in someone else either through becoming impressed by them or by coming into conflict with them. The word ‘integrity,’ therefore, is important here. Integrity is that state where there is no discrepancy within me, where thoughts, feelings and emotions are working together with the silent voice of conscience.
When one’s focus is on the external, the voice of conscience tends to become veiled. For most of us it is something we need to connect with more frequently, to give ourselves the time to listen or to create the space and the stillness to ‘hear.’ In that state of division where there isn’t integrity, a small thing can happen and the reaction can be enormous. We become reactive towards a situation or person. How often have you heard the cautionary words, ‘Engage brain before opening mouth,’ perhaps more politely expressed as ‘think before you speak!’
We see that when one gives attention to carrying out good and positive actions in their life, their interactions with others will be influenced by this. When I have dignity, I am in a position to positively influence those around me for the result of dignity is respect and truth. However, I can only begin to treat others with decency when I have developed dignity for myself.
Respect and Truth
The power of truth is such that I don’t make the mistake of causing sorrow to another or of taking sorrow from someone else. One value that is particularly important in maintaining such a relationship is tolerance. When I have tolerance then those around me can be at ease, they don’t have to pay special attention in what they do such that I don’t become upset or affected. When I have tolerance, I am prepared to accept another person for who they are or what they represent.
With tolerance, if someone makes a mistake then, when I come to deal with the situation, as well as the practical aspect of ‘laying down the law’ there will be respect for that person. When the law is applied with respect then there will be some realisation and that mistake will not be repeated. In this way the person who made the mistake will not lose their honour or their dignity. With this approach, there is no place for criticism, dislike, competition, favouritism or prejudice. It shouldn’t be that you wag your finger at someone, ask ‘Why did you do that?’ or ask for an apology. They themselves will have the thought that they should apologise.
So, what do I need to do to develop this level of dignity?
It is necessary to create time to explore my inner world, to strengthen that voice of conscience, and to know and understand my inner values and give practical acknowledgment to those values. I need to understand causes, reactions, and upheavals in my mind, be able to move it from a negative track to a positive track, and to be in tune with my own conscience. This enables me to know truly who I am and build that level of dignity …. and for this, I need to give myself time for reflection, for silence.
As I develop this inner strength, a state of alignment and integrity follows, and dignity returns to my life again. This enables trust to develop both within my self and with others.
The more one reads about whether prisoners should have the right to vote, the more it reveals about attitudes within society towards those who find themselves behind bars. Of course, there are those who are using the situation to make a statement about the relationship between the British government and the European Court of Human Rights. However, when you read reports, for example, that the Prime Minister was “absolutely horrified” and ‘the thought of it made him physically ill,’ or others who ‘saw absolutely no reason why prisoners should be given the vote,’ it speaks volumes!
We don’t seem to realise that, for the most part, crimes are committed because the perpetrator either doesn’t have respect for another person or for their property. However, the root of respect for another has to be to have respect for oneself. Self-respect must come first. If I, too, don’t show respect to a prisoner, how can that person come to know what respect is for themselves? While I’m sure this is not a popular attitude, to deny it is to suggest that Ghandi also had it wrong when he said, “be the change you wish to see.”
If, as a society, we are to show that we have moved on from the 19th and 20th centuries, then in the context of prisoners being able to vote, let’s have the conversation from the perspective of a rehabilitation platform and not a punishment platform. (To suggest that prisoners are apolitical and are unlikely to use their vote anyway is a smoke-screen. Exactly the same applies to a significant section of society who are not in prison.)
Yes, it is quite natural that we may be ‘absolutely horrified’ by the actions that someone carried out but we should be clear that it is the actions that we are denigrating and not the person. This is what stands at the very heart of rehabilitation, the separation of the person from the action. When I am unable to do that, then my attitude towards the crime becomes my attitude towards the person – perhaps to all those who share the same common factor, that of imprisonment.
However, in the last two decades, attitudes have shifted radically. Today, imprisonment is much more synonymous with rehabilitation; schemes, treatment, and training are offered (or in some cases imposed) which are designed to encourage behavioural change, thinking patterns, awareness and attitudes. Prisons are increasingly a ‘holding station’ – albeit relatively long term in many cases - in which numerous agencies have the opportunity to work with offenders to address their offending behaviours or the circumstances that provoked such behaviours. Prisons, therefore, present an opportunity to help integrate people back into society in a manner that is aligned to societal values and norms.
While the aims of imprisonment may be broadly the same today as they were in 1870 - the year sentenced prisoners were originally denied the right to take part in ballots under the Forfeiture Act - what is certainly different is the intention behind the act of incarceration. In the late 18th and 19th century – the ban was retained in the Representation of the People Act, 1983 – imprisonment was deemed to be punishment. It was a time when the attitude of ‘hang them and flog them’ was almost the only attitude expressed: a time when it was considered to be appropriate to ‘give prisoners a hard time’ physically, mentally and emotionally. The attitude was that they had transgressed the laws of society and deserved to be treated thus.
Should prisoners have the right to vote? If you ask the man in the street, by far-and-away the majority will say, ‘No.’ If you ask our politicians, by far-and-away the majority will say, ‘No.’ If you ask the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg, they will unequivocally say, ‘Yes.’
Why should such a discrepancy exist and why should I feel that the perspective of the ECHR is something that should carry a greater weighting than that of much of Joe Public or many of our politicians? Let me explain.
Created in 1959, the ECHR offered another level of protection to organisations, states and individuals from manipulation, violation of rights, mistreatment and improper trial conduct. The UK government signed up to being a member of the Council of Europe, the human rights body that runs the ECHR, because it demonstrated values (respect, fairness, justice, tolerance etc.) aligned to those important within UK . In accepting this, a bench-mark was being laid down against which those who felt they had been improperly treated could draw upon. A values-based model was in position and could clearly provide a framework within which to work.
Today, five decades later, because the ECHR has deemed it a breach of prisoner’s rights to deny them the opportunity to vote in general elections, there is talk of withdrawing the UK’s association with the ECHR. In the corridors of power and on the street, indignant voices are heard to say, ‘It’s none of their business. They have no jurisdiction to enforce law that contravenes the UK Constitution.’
So what changed? On the one hand, nothing; I’m sure that the government would still stand by those shared values. When one is clear about one’s values, they act as both a strong foundation from which to build as well as a compass to provide clear direction, when faced with challenging decisions.
On the other hand, while the voting-rights of any individual entering prison have been denied since 1870, a decision upheld by the Representation of the People Act, 1983, prisoner John Hirst challenged this in 2004. While this wasn’t the first challenge against the ruling, it was (probably) the first time using the framework of European Court of Human Rights and they decided that it was unlawful.
However, crime and punishment is an emotive subject. It is for this reason that I suggest that the ECHR may have a more balanced perspective of this for they do not allow their emotions to ‘get the better of them’ in the way that someone so close to the situation would. The Judges, one for each country that has signed the European Human Rights Convention, do not represent their countries’ interests in the court, but are individuals who must be completely impartial.
It is not possible for the public to be completely impartial and indeed it is seen that they have a biased perspective of crime? Three quarters of the population think that crime is rising nationally, even though it has actually continued to fall since the mid 90’s. This appears to be sustained even in years when both recorded crime and victimisation surveys point to reductions in overall crime. Of course, politicians must take account of the public’s false perception of increasing levels of crime.
Also, the weighting against the types of crimes committed are perceived incorrectly. There is a tendency to think that crime involving violence is much more common than it actually is – the current figure is 19%. This would suggest that the concomitant emotion level might also be too high.
We are so influenced by our emotions. Whether we are talking about prisoner’s rights, cuts in education provision, or the closure of some national institution, the affect of emotional involvement means that facts will become obscured, decision-making will be more reactive, more protective of limited, closed views, and the weighting between the different elements of the argument will be more unbalanced.
Emotion is a smoke-screen that blinds, confuses and imposes limitation. When there is a degree of separation from a situation, when one is able to stand back and observe from the different angles and then things are seen ‘in a different light.’
If the decision-making process is one that can be conducted free from the straight-jacket of emotion then, at the end of the day, all parties have been given time and attention, opinion acknowledged and valued, and the process unfolded with transparency. In this manner, while consensus may not have achieved, the foundation that underpins the final decision is considerably stronger than it would otherwise have been as respect for all parties has been upheld.
In a recent blog entry, Wendy Marshall, of Hope Mountain, suggested that we actively seek out individuals, projects, and practices that have been the catalyst for change and named several with whom she worked. As I come to understand more about the work that people such as those she mentioned are engaged in, I feel that there is a common denominator present, one that I first became aware of at a conference that was exploring the value of alternative therapies within the prison context.
During the conference, one after another therapy was spoken of and the data that supported the benefits shared with the audience. During a lunchtime conversation, the person I was speaking with suggested that while each therapy almost certainly did carry a benefit to the ‘patient,’ what was probably having the most impact was the fact that the prisoners were receiving quality time and attention, that they were being shown ‘love.’
Love, in its varied expression, is the common denominator which will bring about personal transformation. Love, so often, is the missing ingredient. Perhaps this is why it tends to be the smaller, more intimate exchanges that can bring about the greatest shift in an individual. We see this within the prison setting as well as within education. Generally and unfortunately, larger groups tend to offer less of a connection between the leader or mentor, and the individual within the group.
John Heider, in ‘The Tao of Leadership,’ suggests that it is not the leader’s (mentor’s) role to play judge and jury, to ‘punish’ people for ‘bad’ behaviour. In the first place, punishment does not effectively control behaviour but, even if punishment did work, who would dare use fear as a teaching method?
He says that the wise person knows that there are natural consequences for every act. The task is to shed light on those natural consequences, not to attack the behaviour itself. If one tries to take the place of nature and act as judge and jury, the best you can expect is a crude imitation of a very subtle process. At the very least, the leader or mentor will discover that the sword of justice cuts both ways - punishing others is punishing work!
It is one thing to know what not to do; it is another thing to know what to do …. and be able to sustain that in the midst of challenging behaviours. This is perhaps our greatest challenge – to be the same inside as out and to give …. unconditionally!
© Copyright 1995-2023 Brahma Kumaris
World Spiritual University