John Bowden was sentenced to 25 years in prison, 40 years later he is still there, even although all the criteria set by the parole board have been met, according to the prison professionals who asses these things, the parole board still hold on to their pig-head authoritarian mindset, and refuse him parole. The fact that he is an anarchist and stands firmly by his anarchist principles of resistance to injustice even within the confines of prison, is the main reason for his denial of parole. They demand total and submissive obedience to their idea of the perfect citizen, he must not resist the injustices that he sees all around him. After all that is the real reason for the existence of the prison system. You can forget all that crap about re-rehabilitation and protecting the public, that is the thin veneer they spread of this repressive tool of the state.
On the 22nd January 2019 after almost forty years in prison the
Parole Board considered the case for either my release or continued
imprisonment. In the case of life sentence or indeterminately sentenced
prisoners once such prisoners have been detained for the length of time
originally recommended by the judiciary or Secretary of State, in my
case 25 years, then the Parole Board has a statuary and legal obligation
and responsibility to review the case for either the release or the
continued detention of such prisoners. At three previous parole hearings
my release had been denied by the Parole Board on the grounds that I
was a “difficult and anti-authoritarian” prisoner, and insufficiently
obedient to prison authority; my actual risk or danger to the public,
the prime official criteria for denying the release of life sentence
prisoners, was never cited as a reason for my continued imprisonment.
At my parole hearing on the 22nd January all of the professionals
employed to assess the potential risk of prisoners the community, prison
psychologists, probation officers, etc., all provided evidence stating
that my actual risk to the community was either minimal or non-existent
and that I could be ‘safely managed’ outside of prison. My lawyer
informed the parole panel that the three chief criteria determining the
‘suitability of release’ of life sentence prisoners [has the prisoner
served a sufficient length of time to satisfy the interest of
retribution?; does the prisoner represent a minimal risk to the
community?; can the prisoner be safely managed in the community?] were
all confirmed in my case and therefore there was no real lawful
justification for my continued imprisonment, especially as I remained
still in prison almost fifteen years beyond the length of time
originally recommended by the judiciary. The issues raised by the parole
panel were not in fact my potential risk to the community or potential
for violent behaviour, all of which had been assessed by the system
professionals who gave evidence at the hearing and who unanimously
attested that my risk of either violent behaviour or risk to the
community was minimal; the main concern of the parole panel was my
propensity to challenge prison authority and my association with radical
political groups on the outside, specifically Anarchist Black Cross.
Representatives from the London Probation Service informed the panel
that all of the groups that I was associated with were lawful and none
were associated with illegal activity, and in terms of my relationship
with the prison system whilst I continued to question and challenge what
I perceived as abuses of power, I had not been involved in violent
protest actions against the system for over twenty years.
At the conclusion of the parole hearing the panel announced that it
would deliver its decision regarding my release within fourteen days. By
law parole panels must deliver decisions within fourteen days of
hearings.
On the fourteenth day following my hearing the Parole Board claimed
that it had not in fact concluded the hearing on the 22nd January but
had “adjourned” it and would conclude with a “paper hearing”, when I and
my lawyer would not be present, on the 20th February. They also
requested additional information from the probation officers responsible
for my post-release supervision concerning the conditions and rules of
that supervision. The probation officers subsequently provided the Board
with the information, and reiterated that in their professional opinion
I could be safely managed and supervised in the community.
On the 20th February the Parole Board then claimed that they had
“deferred” the “paper hearing” because one of the Board members
considering my release had decided to go on leave. In early March in
response to inquiries from the Probation Service regarding a parole
decision, the Parole Board said that they were in the process of “finalising” their decision. What was becoming increasingly apparent was that the Parole Board
simply did not want to make a decision, or at least a decision
authorising my release, which placed them in something of a quandary.
Confronted by the evidence and recommendations of system
professionals such as probation officers and prison-hired psychologists
who had all stated that there was no public protection justification for
my continued imprisonment, the Parole authorities were denied a
legitimate legal cover for my continued detention, and obviously were
extremely reluctant to openly declare the true reason for their desire
to deny my release – a determination to continue my punishment for ever
having dared to fight and challenge the prison system, and my refusal to
compromise or surrender my political integrity and spirit. In reality,
when considering the release of life sentence prisoners one criteria is
given absolute priority over all others, and it certainly isn’t “public
protection” or the propensity, or not, of the prisoner to criminally
re-offend. The most fundamental criteria governing the release decision
of life sentence prisoners is the absolute obedience of the prisoner to
the authority of those enforcing that imprisonment? Essentially, prisons
exist as instrument of social control to tame the rebellious poor and
condition them into total obedience to the system; “rehabilitation” is
simply a veneer used to legitimise an institution that is intrinsically
brutal and inhuman.-------------
---------------Britain now currently has the highest population of life sentence
prisoners in the whole of Europe and as the social and political climate
here becomes increasingly more repressive and retributive that
population of the civil dead will continue growing.
Read the full article HERE:
Visit ann arky's home at
https://radicalglasgow.me.uk