Conjugal rights for wrongdoers.

Given out forced Eurocentric predisposition, the suggestion of conjugal rights for incarcerated wrongdoers makes sense -though it may invite unwelcome bugs and tribulations- for the thrust of punishment must be to restore, not further weaken, social wholesomeness and the basic social unit is centred on conviviality.

Subhas has taken in front by raising his objection.

And, Subhas is an honourable man, so expect the notion to take some time to come to any fruitful climax.

Meantime, other things can be done to speed the reduction of recidivism. One such is to allow controlled open communication from behind bars, such as exists in the case of Jeremy Bamber, whose life sentence was yesterday confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights as being "for the rest of his lifetime". His legal team had unsuccessfully "argued that any sentence under which the offender's rehabilitation cannot lead to a review of release breaches articles three, five and seven of the European Convention on Human Rights". (See: BBC News "Murderers lose appeal against whole life tariffs" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16591164)

Bamber, who maintains his innocence, has been imprisoned for the past twenty-six years, having been found guilty of shooting to death five members of his family. Yet, through sympathizers on the outside, also maintains an interesting blogsite whereby his opinions -mostly related to his plight, obviously- are, surprisingly, dispassionately disseminated. For instance, his first reaction to the Court's recent decision was this:

"Both the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice set my minimum tariff as 25 years. Quite why the Home Secretary felt that I should die in jail when the judges felt otherwise is a mystery. To then be told by the European Court that it was reasonable and fair for the Home Secretary to re-sentence me to die in jail is quite extraordinary. This ruling does not really surprise me; it is no different to the injustice of my conviction.

The evidence upon which the Crown have built their case is no longer credible, yet my imprisonment must continue until I’m dead, as evidence of my innocence cannot be disclosed because the Criminal Cases Review Commission have refused to even request it from Essex Police.

I will continue to campaign to prove my innocence and I am hoping that this will happen before my death sentence is carried out.

If the State wishes to have a Death Penalty, then they should be honest and re-introduce hanging. Instead, this political decision that I must die in jail is the Death Penalty using old age or infirmity as the method. It is a method whereby I’m locked in a cell until I’m dead – no matter if it should take 70 or 80 years to happen – I shall be dead the next time I leave jail. This despite that the trial judge said 25 years was punishment enough for a crime I did not commit."

(See: "Jeremy Bamber The Official Blogger" at http://jeremybamber.blogspot.com)

Eye-opening, ent? Especially seeing as we're a society which likes to cap things which belong in the public domain.

Maybe it's time we stop bamboozling and begin giving prison reform a serious shot?

Take aside, Subhas!

Over to you, Commissioner Martinez!