human rights?

Question

Drug addicts made to go cold turkey in prison-surely when they commit a crime they waive their human rights (to a degree), havent they violated somebody elses human rights when they offended?

Answer 1

Yes they did but this is a concept that these idiotic bleeding heart liberals cannot understand.

In my view, these criminals who were awarded the £750,000 should have been to pay it all to their victims to at least provide some compensation for the human rights that they took away from their victims.

However this is a sensible solution and therefore something the PC brigade would never support. Like I said, idiots.

Answer 2

I would certainly argue that as drug taking is illegal then the prison could not supply them with drugs or drug substitutes . As to their Human Rights - everyone is well aware what kind of place a prison is and as they made the decision to choose to reside in one, by committing a crime, I don't think they can complain when the prison then enforces its rules. Cold turkey is actually an established method of comming off drugs and some people say it is the most effective. I don't hear anything being said about the Human Rights of the victims of their crime - they had a right to enjoy their freedom but fear of junkies has taken that from them.

Answer 3

I feel that when they are in prison because they have mugged someone, burgled someone's house, shot or killed or raped someone then why the hell should they expect the courtesies and rights they refused their victims?

On the other hand, I would prefer to give them the Methadone just to shut them up to be honest. You know how these toerags love to scream and voice their disapproval when things don't go their way (and there is always some half baked bleeding heart who'll support them). At least if they're on Methadone they're not smuggling smack into the prison and getting other people hooked.

Plus Methadone's dosage can be controlled by the doctor so they have no choice but to cut down and come off it slowly rather than just indugling their habit illicitly with the help of a few bent "screws" and other prisoners.

Answer 4

I don't believe that you can take away someones rights if they break the law but I don't see the point in putting someone in jail for doing something and then keeping them in drugs.

That is to say taking drugs is not a human right and the only way to get off in my view is cold turkey so the right thing was done in the first place.

Answer 5

Since when was anything "right"about this ridiculous decision..I was brought up to know that you don't commit crime under any circumstances(I was born on a council estate and we didn't have a lot of money).To know that these people are probably in prison because they committed crime to fund the drug habit which is also a crime are going to be given my money makes me so mad.My taxes pay for them to be imprisoned at thousands of pounds a year ,they have probably never worked so my taxes pay their benefits(which they still get in prison) and now I am going to compensate them for being stopped from committing further crimes again!
Was I taught the wrong thing ..does crime pay ,well the government seems to think it does obviously!

Answer 6

Who did drug addicts offend. Sure some commit crimes to get their drugs, but they wouldn't have to do this if the drugs were legal and obtainable at a reasonable price. They have no choice but to commit crimes just to live. I'm sorry I don' believe anyone waives their human rights by committing a crime, and certainly not by committing a crime just by taking drugs. We have the prisons full of people who do nothing but smoke marijuana. We have the largest percentage of our people in prison of any country in the world, and the biggest percentage are for drug offenses against no one. We could have a balanced budget if we legalized drugs and taxed them. We could also properly incarcerate violent offenders who are let off easy because of the over crowding of our prisons created by drug offenses.

Answer 7

the human rights issue is very intricate. when it comes to committing a crime , yes to a certain degree they waived their human rights . But there is also mercy and compassion. It does not make sense to have them killed for example. But yes they should be punished in relation to the crime commit ed.

Answer 8

I'm playing devil's advocate but where does it say they have waived their human rights by committing a crime? If they have violated another person's human rights, does that mean we can violate theirs? Wouldn't that make us as bad as them? Are we living in biblical times of 'an eye for an eye'?

Answer 9

Their rights may have been violated by the fact of depriving them medicine.
Should we now compensate ALL convicts for having their freedom taken away?
Or rapists as there isnt the same victims on offer?
Where is the line drawn?
When comitting crime ALL privileges except the basics should be taken away, pure and simple.

Answer 10

At first thought, I would agree with your sentiments. However, thinking about it dispassionately, surely the imprisonment is the punishment, the agony of withdrawal is not part of the sentence, and could be construed as unjustified cruelty. That's not to say prisoners should have a right to illegal substances, but an obligatory rehab program, with substitute medication is surely more civilised than forced cold turkey?