Unbelievable

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

Does anyone take ANY personal responsibility any more?

So what does responsibility mean when the State screws up in it's duty of care? The ONLY way to teach State agencies a lesson is to cost them money. Remember, the punishment is being administered, the criminal is PAYING their debt to society by being deprived of their liberty - as per their sentence - and any suffering inflicted upon them beyond that is, quite simply, brutality.

This is a one of those dreaded truisms. Have you any data to back this up?

No, I haven't data to back it up. I was asking if there was any comparison figures (i guess it could be done), I was more playing devils advocate.

As mentioned Alcohol withdrawal is a much more serious affair which can if not treated lead to seizures and death. As far as i'm aware medication for alcohol withdrawal is available on admission to prison. Their is less of a moral judgement call. Again the anti social/domestic violence agenda with alcohol misuse appearssignificantly higher than with drugs. Clearly alcohol is not illegal but the crime and societal impact is massive.

The case in question was purely about medical negligence not the moral side to drug use and crime. To be honest its a wonder it didn't happen years ago.

Regards

Diccus

Currently reading the Led Zeppelin biography 'Hammer of the gods' which highlights many of the 'high jinx' particularly on the American tours of the early seventies. Bonzo, as time went on became a violent drunk assaulting men and women in his alcoholic rages and ended up dying because of his drug. He was known to band members as 'The beast' because of his behaviour in drink. Jimmy Page in later tours was 'dating the white lady' a reference to his heroin use and he became more introverted and his creative and social input went down hill. Clearly Jimmy had the money to fund his habit. However I rarely see any of our 'heroes' who had heroin habits including many of the Jazz greats as 'dirty drug addicts'. Much of this is related to media presentation.

Regards

Diccus

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Drug addiction is a complex (albeit self-inflicted) medical condition. ?

Drug and alcohol addictions are rightly regarded as diseases. Most medical conditions are "self-inflicted" by the definition that human behaviour contributes to them, from the obvious example of smoking (nicotine addiction), through obesity (food addiction), to accidents (risk addiction?).

If I were to deny medical care to those who had contributed to their illness in some way, I'd have a nice quiet life.

quote:

Drug and alcohol addictions are rightly regarded as diseases. Most medical conditions are "self-inflicted" by the definition that human behaviour contributes to them, from the obvious example of smoking (nicotine addiction), through obesity (food addiction), to accidents (risk addiction?).

See your point but should The State (Us/we) then fund the provision of fags, higher quantity of hifat food or thrills to further feed those that are addicted?

Certainly I think The State should at least consider helping people off these addictions as in the long run it is a good idea for all sorts of social, political and economic reasons but it seems that many folks do not want to come off their addictions, as these help them through their day (I'm sure many do though) and this course of events seems less and less about helping take care of people, as opposed to making prison less unpleasant than it could/should be?.

I think we need to distinguish between psychological dependence and physical addiction.

I think we need to be more clear about the withdrawal of treatment e.g. the substitution of methadone (or subutex) for heroin as part of a programme to eradicate(?) use, and giving fat people a sensible diet and not buying fags for smokers.

quote:

Remember, the punishment is being administered, the criminal is PAYING their debt to society by being deprived of their liberty

Riiiggghhht.

Go visit a prison Deane...

2 tiny questions deriving from earlier posts:

1. How does fining a State institution punish that institution? It doesn't pay - the taxpayer does.

2. How is the criminal paying a debt to society by costing the taxpayer more for their imprisonment?

Fraser

1) I guess it's the same as fining a large corporation. Someone important takes the rap in what is otherwise a hugely symbolic sanction.

2) Depriving someone of their liberty is a costly business anyway. Being imprisoned is not about paying debt to society, it's about incapacitation and, to a lesser extent, retribution.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

quote:

Remember, the punishment is being administered, the criminal is PAYING their debt to society by being deprived of their liberty

Riiiggghhht.

Go visit a prison Deane...

I have done, and if your post is meant to imply that prisoners are having a fun time then I didn't see it. My time in Wandsworth (in a professional capacity) left me deeply distressed by the severity of the regime. Particularly as my impression was that many prisoners were there as a result of mental illness.

quote:

Originally posted by Rockingdoc:

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

quote:

Remember, the punishment is being administered, the criminal is PAYING their debt to society by being deprived of their liberty

Riiiggghhht.

Go visit a prison Deane...

I have done, and if your post is meant to imply that prisoners are having a fun time then I didn't see it. My time in Wandsworth (in a professional capacity) left me deeply distressed by the severity of the regime. Particularly as my impression was that many prisoners were there as a result of mental illness.

I'd concurr with that and my experience of treating patients in custody.

As part of my law studies 20 odd years ago, we visted Wandsworth and Brixton. Both were extremely unpleasant experiences Initially the smell (prisons stink it seems), then the sounds, the shouts, the doors closing, the echoing all around. Finally the prisoners. There were clearly a lot of very nasty people and some very confused people there too (on both sides of the wire, so to speak).

It terrified me as someone who's only previous prison experiences came from watching Fletcher or The Great Escape on telly. I am constantly surprised that any one who goes to these places even considers re-offending. Perhaps sometimes it comes down to the lesser of two evils? Or perhaps they're not as nasty as they were?

It is sad to note that the prison environment is actually the most supportive that many of the inmates will have ever experienced. A reflection on the backgrounds of the inmates rather than a 'soft' prison regime.

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:
It is sad to note that the prison environment is actually the most supportive that many of the inmates will have ever experienced. A reflection on the backgrounds of the inmates rather than a 'soft' prison regime.

I concur. Most of the people I have met that have been to prison (or Youth Offenders Institutions) have been very damaged individuals who often NEED the structure of prison to keep them and communities safe. There are also too many people with learning Disabilities and significant mental health problems in their too. The officers are not trained to manage these people.

Regards

Diccus

quote:

Drug addiction is a complex (albeit self-inflicted) medical condition. If we are to deny prisoners methadone and allow them to suffer the physical pain of cold turkey, for the sake of consistency, shouldn't all prisoners be denied pain killers when they need them?

This is the issue for me - why do folk take recreational drugs? BECAUSE THEY LIKED THE INTITAL EFFECTS AND WANTED THAT EFFECT SOME MORE!

They then become addicted because of the superb defence mechanisms that are built into the human body, thus needing to consume more of the same to achieve the same effect. etc etc Eventually, because of other side effects, they have to fund their habit in order to remain 'level'. Sure there are no doubt social and peer pressure reasons for this, but addicition is not, IMV, achieved in one 'hit'.

Oh, and don't just lump illicit drugs in this, consider prescribed addicatable drugs, also.

Andy C

Remember it is very significantly in the interests of those who produce and sell illegal drugs to ensure that they succeed in attracting new customers. Thus the process of 'creating' a new addict involves lots of pressures.

I'd also point out that a surprising number of people can use recreational drugs in non-addictive ways (and indeed not everyone who has a drink becomes an alcoholic).

Addiction is a complex process in which free will is just one factor, it is an interaction between the drug, the personality and various social and personal factors.

Some people have addictive personalities, long before they take the first heroin hit.

Bruce

...and people don't choose to become addicts (although they may choose recovery at a later stage). Therefore, whether an addict becomes a criminal is largely determined by luck regarding what substance or behaviour the potential addict gets drawn into, there doesn't appear to be much choice for most.
They all tend to result in harm eg. drug and alcoholism results in physical, mental harm and often criminal behaviour. Food addiction, compulsive gambling, spending, sex addiction etc. all result in harm but the stigma and penalties from society vary greatly.
There are plenty of nice, reasonable, considerate people in prison because they couldn't stop after the first drink and then committed a serious drink-driving offence when in blackout.

Bruce,
totally accept what you are saying. Totally.

I know there is peer pressure, and indeed other pressures, but lets not also forget that quite a few folk 'volunteer' to do what we are discussing, as well.

when talking to some addicts, and you ask them how they started, a variety of factors will come into play...

No one is forced to take drugs.
Everybody has a choice.
Everybody knows hard drugs are illegal and dangerous.
If you take drugs you open up a whole world of possible sh*t.
You know this.
Accept what you are doing is wrong and be prepared for any consequences that may result. Hard luck.

One of your kids could end up on drugs. Yup, it could happent to any parent. You'd still love them, wouldn't you?

A solution would be a scorched earth policy in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.

Steve, goes without saying.

I'm not saying people should be denied help, I'm saying that when people make the choice to take drugs they remove their right to expect anything. The problem is of their making.

quote:

A solution would be a scorched earth policy in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.

No, that would make matters worse.

Taking proscribed drugs is a crime as the law now stands but is not in itself anti-social: it is the high cost of drugs that leads to the mugging, robbery and burglary that is the objectionable aspect.

If drugs were available at known purity, at reasonable cost (taxed like ciggies and booze) and available at licensed outlets (with age restrictions) then, as with alcohol, people would use them responsibly or not but would not have to resort to acquisitive crime to fund their habit. Drug “barons” and their minions would be out of business overnight. Tax revenue could be used to provide de-tox programmes.

Buying the product from developing countries as a cash crop would provide them with a sustainable income.

quote:

No one is forced to take drugs.
Everybody has a choice.
Everybody knows hard drugs are illegal and dangerous.
If you take drugs you open up a whole world of possible sh*t.
You know this.
Accept what you are doing is wrong and be prepared for any consequences that may result. Hard luck.

What a complete and utter load of bollocks.

How so? Do tell...