THERE has been a lot of debate recently about minimum sentences for habitual criminals.

To begin with I agreed with this but after watching an edition of Kilroy on BBC, I have changed my mind.

I was disgusted to hear one ex-prisoner boast he had obtained an Open University degree at the cost of the tax payer, while a disabled man, who had never been in trouble in his life, could not afford further education but could not get financial help from the state.

Another pointed out his grandmother had been mugged. A solicitor is available to the villain 24 hours a day, 365 days a year at public expense. Assistance for victims of crime is available only Monday to Friday in most areas.

The programme made it perfectly clear: at present prisons are far too soft and are no deterrent.

Glass-house conditions in the Army were so sparse and the regime so strict offenders did not want to go back.

Perhaps if prisons were like that today people would not re-offend.

All televisions, radios, gyms, pool tables, videos and other amenities should be removed. Newspapers should not be allowed and prisoners should have the minimum amount of food to sustain them - no three course meals.

Everybody seems to be on the side of the criminals and Michael Howard's empty promises have not helped.

While I agree judges are way out-of-touch with the real world when it comes to sentencing, I think that Michael Howard is wrong to enforce minimum sentences. What he should do is bring back the birch, then if a judge chooses to sentence a drug pusher or mugger to six months in prison they should receive 10 strokes of the birch each day. I doubt they would want to return.

There is a prison in Hindley, I doubt very much they would have a problem filling the position of a person to hand out birching.

Kevin J Dempsey

Hindley.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.