Human Rights?

Question

What do you think about the prisoners who have just won an out of court setlement for up to £10,000 because they where denide drugs under the contravention of their human rights when they was detained in prison for the crimes they commited? should the people they commited these crimes against not get compensation instead? and what about their human rights? Do these inocent law abiding citizens not have any? I think this government have gone too far, What are your views on this subject?

I think a few people might have misunderstood what I meant about drugs. The drugs in question was in fact class A (heroin) and not drugs for medical purposes. A drug addict chooses to be an addict and so chooses to take drugs. Pople with illnesses need drugs, they dont choose to be ill.

Answer 1

I think it's unbelievable! Why on earth should we be providing drugs to convicted criminals. It's pathetic but the government are so damn scared about upsetting anyone as usual that they cave in and just let people get away with it! Drugs are illegal, simple as, many people are in jail because of drugs so why on earth are we giving them away? I hate this and am 100% appalled by it. I'm only 16 as well so I'm not even allowed to vote for these so called rulers of our country

Answer 2

I think this piece from today's "The Independent" sums up my views very well:

------

Irresponsible behaviour
Pub. Published: 14 November 2006

Get ready for the outcry. Six heroin-addicted prisoners are poised to receive compensation from the Home Office in an out-of-court settlement. The men, who were on methadone before they began their sentences, were put on detoxification programmes once in prison that quickly and sharply lowered their supplies of the heroin substitute. Their lawyers claim this, in effect, forced their clients into "cold turkey", amounting to clinical negligence and a breach of human rights legislation by the prison authorities.

The level of compensation has yet to be decided, but already there are complaints that paying compensation to criminals is wrong under any circumstances. Others say the very existence of drug treatment programmes inside proves our jails are too "soft". The opponents of The Human Rights Act are in loud voice too. The Conservative Home Affairs spokesman, David Davis, suggests the Government capitulated because it did not want to be embarrassed by losing the case under legislation it introduced itself.

There is a case for arguing that the High Court should have been permitted to reach a verdict, allowing the full airing of all the arguments. The outcome is, nevertheless, welcome. This was a breach of guidelines by prison officers as the inmates did not consent to the treatment. The case for clinical negligence is strong too. "Cold turkey" is notoriously likely to result in a relapse. Moreover, prisoners enjoy the same rights to a proper standard of medical treatment - including for drug addiction - as any other patient. In this case, they did not get it.

This will prove a costly blunder. Almost 200 further inmates are understood to have lodged similar claims. But the real scandal here is less the treatment of these particular individuals, than the continued absence of a well-funded drug detoxification programme in our prisons. This problem would not have arisen had one been in place. The Government pledged £28m in funding for a treatment programme for inmates in 2006. But only £12m has been delivered this year.

This shortfall is irresponsible. Roughly half of all prisoners are on drugs. Most repeatedly end up in jail because they steal to finance their addiction. All the evidence suggests that giving criminals proper drug treatment in jail would lead to lower reoffending rates. If our political leaders were less interested in winning cheap plaudits and more interested in reducing crime, they would devote their fullest attention to the matter of drug treatment in our prisons. Instead, the depressing truth is that most seem determined to persist with a discredited and failing approach.

Answer 3

We are talking "drugs" as in medication here, and we do not know anything about these people's crimes.
Do you really believe a middle aged housewife, being sent down for repeated shoplifting should not get her ,say, asthma medication while in prison? Or a diabetic should be left to go blind or fall into a coma for lack of insulin?
I find the general hatred against prison inmates that's being spread by a certain type of press quite digusting. Every car driver has one foot behind bars, it could happen to every one of us that one too risky overtaking could result in the loss of human life and a conviction for dangerous driving.

Answer 4

This government has gone nuts. Prisoners should be locked in a cell 20 hours a day with no TV, no games consoles and get fed crap everynight. They get more money spent on there dinners then our school children do! A lot of them reoffend for the cushy life inside. Make there lifes hell then they might not want to be there in the first place. What about the human rights of the victims when there attackers get released early to taunt them or prehaps kill. With the illegal immigrants why put them in prison here. They are getting what they want, food and a bed to sleep in. Probably a bit of pocket money for the tuck shop too!. Omly british citizens should be in our jails then they would not be a shortage of beds and people would not be able to reoffend whilst been in unsecure units like bail hostels.

Answer 5

You don't mention what sort(s) of drugs these prisoners were denied. If it was insulin, for instance, diabetics can DIE without it.
Convicted criminals lose most of their rights, and well they should. And, yes, victims deserve better treatment than simply having the perpetrator put away. (In the United States, it's possible to take civil action (sue) against even the unconvicted: O.J. Simpson is a case in point.)
Prisons are "supposed" to be places of rehabilitation for all but the most heinous. If we aspire to live in a more "civilized" society, then we must behave in kind. Going back to dungeons, medieval torture and the like is not the way forward.

Answer 6

Its disgusting, Under Blair's Law, (Human rights) the innocent law abiding citizens do not have any rights. This is a disgrace and goes to show exactly how the Government view our rights (of which we have none). This is one law that should be done away with, the only people who are benefitting from this are the ones committing crimes etc.

Answer 7

I agree with you about human rights of the victims but a twisted thought just came to me, let the prisoners have access to the drugs, then lock them up again for trafficking and using !!!!!

Answer 8

It all has to do with what the legal sentence was. If they were sentenced to be without their drugs, then of course their claim should be denied. If however their sentences presumed that they would be left in satisfactory health, and they needed the medicines to maintain their health, then they have a legitimate claim. None of us benefit from people being brutalized, whether that is done by criminals, or by Big Government.

Answer 9

The victims of their crimes should immediately bring civil cases and try to attach the proceeds of the awards to the prisoners.

Prisoners do not lose "human rights". Certain civil rights, by comparison, may be suspended. That is settled law. (Three US states, NY, ID and RI have "civil death" laws for lifers, but that's another story.)

Answer 10

I think it is outrageous. The government have given these people some fo my tax money!!! If they had allowed them to have drugs in jail would the prison service be doen for supplying and if one of them died of a drugs overdose and the prison had been supplying would the have been done for murder!!!! Where has common sense gone!