I SYMPATHISE with the predicament of Robert Neilson, the York market trader thrown into a stinking prison cell in Thailand on drugs charges before being cleared by police (September 10).

But I do wonder whether such adverse conditions might deter a few of the constant stream of offenders I read about every night in the Evening Press.

It is a known fact that a huge percentage of these people - house burglars, car thieves, drunken, violent yobs and the like - are serious repeat offenders, who know that, even if given they may be apprehended, they will be no doubt be kept warm, safe, fed and watered, and have access to decent washing and toilet facilities.

In due course, if convicted, on the unlikely chance that they receive a custodial sentence, they will be similarly pampered with access to colour TV in their cells, state of the art computer suites, gym and sports facilities plus three meals a day.

As long as they keep their noses clean, their already pathetic sentence is cut by at least half.

Does anyone ever stop to question why the reoffending rate is so alarmingly high?

Does no one ever question whether the conditions people are held in have a direct impact on the choice they make whether to re-offend again after their sentence is served? I should be interested to know what the re-offending rate is in countries such as Thailand, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

For some at least, experiencing the appallingly squalid conditions that Mr Neilson was unfortunate to encounter may make them think again about the consequences of their actions. It is their choice.

G Rudd,

Kerver Lane,

Dunnington, York.

Updated: 10:38 Tuesday, September 14, 2004