Prisoners paid £750,000 for 'cold turkey' in jail

[Blagsta]

That criminals have criminal associates, or that those associates get caught? Come to think of it, the latter is pretty ridiculous isn't it.

I'm taking issue with your rather absurd assumption that people in prison only know other people in prison.

That prisoners make new criminal contacts on the inside. Hardly a matter of dispute among criminologists.

Yes, this can happen.

Masks stop convicts recognising each other, and silence stops them sharing their ugly trade. (And, indeed, protects the weak convicts from the strong.) It will break the will of "professional criminals" just as effectively as it would the young, foolish men who would otherwise fall under their influence.

Are you taking the piss? I can't decide if you're on a wind up or not.

Withdraw that libel at once. Round here "pikey" refers to criminal youths dressed in three-stripes and trainers (regardless of race). It's a synonym for chav. Any previous associations are long lost.

Pikey means the same as gypsy.

And I'm "bigoted" for despising anti-social, thuggish youth?

You're bigotted for assuming that people who dress a certain way are criminals, yes.

I clearly don't think they're all the same or I wouldn't have argued for more help for addicts than hardened offenders.

You seem quite confused tbh.

Thinking they tend to have criminal associates is hardly the same as thinking they're in the same club. And I'm well aware which communities they're drawn from, I've seen people go that way and I wish a strong, wise law was there to save them from themselves.

You're coming across as quite mad, you know that?

So, who would you class as a criminal deserving of harsh punishment,

I'm not keen on rapists and child abusers. However I also recognise that normal, healthy people don't commit these sort of acts.

and do you think current legal laxity (coupled with the decline of conscience) plays no part in letting men descend into a life of crime?

What on earth are you on about?

 

[Azrael]

No, that's not quite what I've said.

Fine, so how do these circumstances mitigate personal responsibility?

Allowed and prohibited by whom? In what circumstances? How does power, money and social status impact on this?

The John Stuart Mill test is my guiding principle: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant"

It's all relevant. Given that a large proportion of people in prison have drug problems and/or mental health problems, I think an exploration of what these things are is very relevant.

Fair enough, but it's a tangent too far for this debate.

No you haven't. All you've done is state it is so without any explanation (apart from a vague and confused bit about "moral debt".)

It clearly has confused you, but it was quite clear: the crime creates a moral debt, and the convict's suffering repays that debt. People have an innate desire to see the scales balanced.

But its not the same thing. Are you now arguing for retribution instead? At least you're being a bit more honest now.

They are not mutually exclusive. Hard labour is both retributive and a method of atonement for the morally illiterate (ie, those who cannot, or will not, atone for their crimes in a more sophisticated fashion) and as punishment should be universal all should undergo it.

It's a twofold purpose, and I listed retribution a page back.

Yes, yes, very good. Who gets to define what these moral certainties are? Who gets to define authrority? Authority in whose interests?

Authority defines itself: lawful power. The law should be bound by a constitution establishing certain absolute civil liberties as history has shown useful and necessary (jury trial, the right to silence, etc).

No you haven't. You've just stated that it would be a good thing - you've yet to state why (apart from retribution).

See #105: it deters the convict from recidivism, it deters others, and it makes the convict aware society considers his crime absolutely wrong.

Blimey, you have a very black and white view of the world! I've already gone into how choice is not a black and white issue. The real world has lots of shades of grey. Admitting that will not cause your world to fall apart.

Shades of grey demand you take care where you place something on the scale of black and white, not that you mix the two colours. The abolition of moral certainty has caused this country's peace to fall apart.

*bangs head*

Look - some people have had abusive upbringings. Some people have been beaten or otherwise abused by people who were supposed to care for them. I'd hazard that a good 95% of people I come across in my line of work have had some emotional or other abuse in their childhood. This tends to impact on people's ability to make choices and take responsibility. Merely chucking people in prison does nothing to address this.

And yet others who suffer those things do not commit crimes. I agree, "chucking people in prison" doesn't address these things. Education and medical help while in there can, as well as anything, and at the least they can make it clear to the convict that, while past may be prologue, it is not a get-out clause.

What will it [hard labour] help?

Atonement and retribution. Getting tired of having to press replay.

"wickedness"? Oh dear. There's a strong theme of Christianity coming across from you.

I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I have to abandon good moral thinking.

I'm also unclear what "self-serving excuses and sociological epistles" actually means.

Crap about "deviancy" (in the sociological sense) and how circumstances help explain and excuse crime.

Errrrr...what the fuck!?!?! Ruthless revelation? Errr...?!?

Forcing the convict to face their sin, its consequences, and their own moral failings, with no talk of excuses.

I think people are mostly capable of controlling themselves tbh.

Yes, and until the French Revolution progressives had some justification in thinking that. They lost that justification 200 years ago, and the loss is reinforced in every single case of revolution or governmental collapse. This view is deeply dangerous, yet still the Left clings to it. Why, I wonder.

So you do agree that "might is right". The most ruthless person will gain power.

The strongest will gain power. That doesn't mean I think strength justifies itself.

Are you seriously suggesting the strongest will no gain power?!

You seem to have an obsession with order. I find it rather weird tbh. I'm wondering why you think that people in power will respect certain limits? The real world seems rather different.

Even Bush's government is being forced to respect some rudimentary limits. Government will respect limits when bound with a rigid constitution.

I'm not keen on the entire concept of ruling and power. You seem to have a rather pathological need for it.

I have a need for order and freedom. Power is there whether I want it or not, and always will be. I simply want it to be just and fair, so far as is humanly possible.

Yes, yes. What does it mean? Who determines what constitutes this liberty? Does it have limits? Who defines them? Who determines what peace and security means? Yep - the people in power. History shows us that people in power are only interested in looking after their own.

Yes, so they must be forced to respect liberty, good order and personal property. There are many means of achieving this, a strong constitution and bill of rights being foremost among them (so long as they are backed up by constant and vigorous popular support). As to what liberty and justice means, I refer you back to the Mill test.

 

[Azrael]

I'm taking issue with your rather absurd assumption that people in prison only know other people in prison.

Never claimed that, and do not think it.

Are you taking the piss [about the silent regime]? I can't decide if you're on a wind up or not.

Erm, no. You deny that separating prisoners from one another and abolishing personal contact would eliminate criminal influence and bullying?

Pikey means the same as gypsy.

No, it used to refer to a particular type of Irish traveller. The predominant usage is now a synonym for chav. This is as bad as that Washington journalist who was sacked for using the word "niggardly".

You're bigotted for assuming that people who dress a certain way are criminals, yes.

Dressed and act in a certain way. Are you seriously denying knowledge of the chav infestation of our urban spaces?

You seem quite confused tbh.

You're coming across as quite mad, you know that?

Less ad homiem, more argument please.

I'm not keen on rapists and child abusers. However I also recognise that normal, healthy people don't commit these sort of acts.

Normal and healthy people do commit those acts. "Normal" men have raped women on dates gone wrong. (Awaits a feminist to come crashing in, declare "all men are rapists", and see one hand of the left slap the other.) Crime is not a sickness. You don't deny that murders and assaults are committed by "normal and healthy" people who snap?

What on earth are you on about?

A youth who's notched up tens (or hundreds) of cautions and convictions (with minor, or no, punishment) is not being deterred from a life of recidivism. One who suffers harsh, exemplary punishment for every offence, and who knows that everyone supports moral rules they are expected to obey, just might be.

 

[Blagsta]

Fine, so how do these circumstances mitigate personal responsibility?

If someone has not had the role models (putting in the simplest terms) to show them how to take responsibility, to show them what it means, then how can they? I think most people have the capacity to do so, but some people have to be given the emotional and psychological tools to do so or to realise that it's worth while.

The John Stuart Mill test is my guiding principle: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant"

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Fair enough, but it's a tangent too far for this debate.

It clearly has confused you, but it was quite clear: the crime creates a moral debt, and the convict's suffering repays that debt. People have an innate desire to see the scales balanced.

Yes, you keep saying this, yet you can't explain what it actually means. Where is this moral bank balance? Who decides what constitutes balanced scales? You can't answer any of these things.

They are not mutually exclusive. Hard labour is both retributive and a method of atonement

Yes, but how?

for the morally illiterate

"morally illiterate" What?

(ie, those who cannot, or will not, atone for their crimes in a more sophisticated fashion) and as punishment should be universal all should undergo it.

Errr...you're not making a bit of sense.

It's a twofold purpose, and I listed retribution a page back.

Errrr...

*baffled*

Authority defines itself: lawful power. The law should be bound by a constitution establishing certain absolute civil liberties as history has shown useful and necessary (jury trial, the right to silence, etc).

What? Yes, how do these people get into authority? Whose interests do they then look after? By "Authority defines itself", do you mean that whoever has the power wields the power? Well, yes, but it's a rather circular argument and it doesn't answer my question.

See #105: it deters the convict from recidivism, it deters others, and it makes the convict aware society considers his crime absolutely wrong.

Sorry, but people just don't think like that. Harsh punishment does not act as a deterrant. What does "absolutely wrong" mean? What are these absolutes measured against?

Shades of grey demand you take care where you place something on the scale of black and white, not that you mix the two colours.

Errrr...what do you think grey is? How do you think a spectrum of black to white gets from one to the other?

The abolition of moral certainty has caused this country's peace to fall apart.

And yet others who suffer those things do not commit crimes.

Leaving aside the fact that everyone commits crimes (yes, even you) - you're right. Not everyone who has a shitty abusive upbringing gets a drug habit or robs or hurts people. However it is a factor. People direct their anger and hurt in different ways. Some internal, some external. Some people are luck enough to get help or support. Some people are stronger than others. However to dismiss these influences is rather stupid.

I agree, "chucking people in prison" doesn't address these things. Education and medical help while in there can, as well as anything, and at the least they can make it clear to the convict that, while past may be prologue, it is not a get-out clause.

I'd dispute "medical care" as being able to help people with emotional problems. I'm not big on medical models of mental and emotional health, as you may have gathered. No one is arguing that it is a get out clause btw - stop putting words in my mouth.

Atonement and retribution. Getting tired of having to press replay.

Yes, but you don't seem to know what the word atonement means.

I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I have to abandon good moral thinking.

There's a streak of Christianity a mile wide in your posts. Atonement, retribution, ruthless revelation, sociological epistles, moral certainty etc.

Crap about "deviancy" (in the sociological sense) and how circumstances help explain and excuse crime.

How is it "crap"? Who excuses crime?

Forcing the convict to face their sin, its consequences, and their own moral failings, with no talk of excuses.

There you go again with the Christian stuff - "sin". Personally I reject the notion of "sin".

Yes, and until the French Revolution progressives had some justification in thinking that. They lost that justification 200 years ago, and the loss is reinforced in every single case of revolution or governmental collapse.

Control is not a static thing. It is dynamic and contingent on circumstance. As it happens, I think that yes, people in groups in certain circumstances can commit then most terrible atrocities. However, I still stand by what I wrote - people are capable of a greater degree of control than you give them credit for. You appear to have a pathological need for imposing your moral order on everyone else.

This view is deeply dangerous, yet still the Left clings to it. Why, I wonder.

I agree that large sections of the left need to get their heads around human psychology. As do the right.

The strongest will gain power. That doesn't mean I think strength justifies itself.

What are you saying then?

Are you seriously suggesting the strongest will no gain power?!

What?

Even Bush's government is being forced to respect some rudimentary limits. Government will respect limits when bound with a rigid constitution.

I have a need for order and freedom. Power is there whether I want it or not, and always will be. I simply want it to be just and fair, so far as is humanly possible.

Yes, so they must be forced to respect liberty, good order and personal property. There are many means of achieving this, a strong constitution and bill of rights being foremost among them (so long as they are backed up by constant and vigorous popular support). As to what liberty and justice means, I refer you back to the Mill test.

Actually fuck it, your view is sooooo far apart from mine I don't think we'll ever find any common ground. You come across as someone with deep rooted Christian views, very rigid and inflexible thinking, an almost pathological need to impose order otherwise your world will descend into chaos. You see everything in strict black and white, unable to see that people are actually a complex mix of good and bad. To be honest you come across as a bit of a nutter.

 

[Blagsta]

Never claimed that, and do not think it.

Erm, no. You deny that separating prisoners from one another and abolishing personal contact would eliminate criminal influence and bullying?

No, it used to refer to a particular type of Irish traveller. The predominant usage is now a synonym for chav. This is as bad as that Washington journalist who was sacked for using the word "niggardly".

Dressed and act in a certain way. Are you seriously denying knowledge of the chav infestation of our urban spaces?

Less ad homiem, more argument please.

Using language like you do - infestation, scum, chav, pikey etc makes me think you are a thouroughly nasty individual tbh.

Normal and healthy people do commit those acts. "Normal" men have raped women on dates gone wrong.

No, most normal men do not rape women.

(Awaits a feminist to come crashing in, declare "all men are rapists", and see one hand of the left slap the other.)

Rather contradictory. On the one hand, you think rape is committed by normal men, on the other hand you take issue with "all men are rapists" (which is not the phrase btw - it is "all men are potential rapists" and it has varying interpretations). Make your mind up. Do "normal" (all, everday) men commit rape?

Crime is not a sickness.

I didn't say it was. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You don't deny that murders and assaults are committed by "normal and healthy" people who snap?

No, I don't deny that. The relevance to what I posted is...what?

A youth who's notched up tens (or hundreds) of cautions and convictions (with minor, or no, punishment) is not being deterred from a life of recidivism. One who suffers harsh, exemplary punishment for every offence, and who knows that everyone supports moral rules they are expected to obey, just might be.

You're living in a fantasy world.

 

[detective-boy]

You're very naive. That may be what is supposed to happen, but it usually doesn't.

You are simply wrong. Please provide evidence to support your claim that the police routinely ("usually"!) interfere in the medical treatment of persons detained.

 

[Blagsta]

Come along to the project where I work and talk to our clients.

 

[Azrael]

If someone has not had the role models (putting in the simplest terms) to show them how to take responsibility, to show them what it means, then how can they? I think most people have the capacity to do so, but some people have to be given the emotional and psychological tools to do so or to realise that it's worth while.

Very vague this. If people genuinely can't distinguish right from wrong they lack mens rea (a guilty mind) and can't be convicted of a crime. What "emotional and psychological" tools do you need to decide something is "worthwhile": and come to think of it, since when has it been down to the subject to decide that the law is "worthwhile".

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Well I've seen some devastating critiques of JS Mill in my time, but gawd damn.

Yes, you keep saying this, yet you can't explain what it actually means. Where is this moral bank balance? Who decides what constitutes balanced scales? You can't answer any of these things.

I already said it's for jurists to decide the exact balance: but more to the point, it's you who's very confused here. You say you support punishment: well all punishment works on the principle of moral debt. Hard labour or imprisonment, it's all just a matter of degree.

If you don't understand the notion of moral debt, why on earth do you support punishment?

"morally illiterate" What?

People who have no recognisable code of reciprocal morality: people who either don't know or don't care what harm their actions do to others.

What? Yes, how do these people get into authority? Whose interests do they then look after? By "Authority defines itself", do you mean that whoever has the power wields the power? Well, yes, but it's a rather circular argument and it doesn't answer my question.

No, I mean "authority" is, by definition, lawful government. It has to be authorised by someone, and in a democracy the people are the authors of government. (Or so goes the theory.)

My point is power does not justify itself because raw power is not authority. Charles I spoke little sense, but he had it spot on when he said: "I would know by what power I am called hither … there are many unlawful Authorities in the world, Thieves and Robbers by the highways: but I would know by what Authority I was brought."

So if the person who wields power is illegitimate (as defined by the relevant law) then they should be resisted.

Sorry, but people just don't think like that. Harsh punishment does not act as a deterrant.

Well those Victorians and Edwardians were doing something right, and it wasn't deploying pseudo-science.

What does "absolutely wrong" mean? What are these absolutes measured against?

A categorical imperative derived from the weight of human experience and logic. A shame secular morality gave up on absolute morals after Kant and moved into relativism.

Errrr...what do you think grey is? How do you think a spectrum of black to white gets from one to the other?

The grey of human experience can stand separate from the black and white of the law. The law is predicated on absolutes: "guilty" and "not guilty". You can't mix the law, you can only apply it with care.

Leaving aside the fact that everyone commits crimes (yes, even you) - you're right. Not everyone who has a shitty abusive upbringing gets a drug habit or robs or hurts people. However it is a factor. People direct their anger and hurt in different ways. Some internal, some external. Some people are luck enough to get help or support. Some people are stronger than others. However to dismiss these influences is rather stupid.

I don't deny people direct their anger or hurt at other people. That does not mitigate the wrong. To use these influences to mitigate responsibility is rather stupid: it tells criminals they can always explain away their actions. (And if you're not mitigating responsibility, how do you want these influences taken into account.)

]I'd dispute "medical care" as being able to help people with emotional problems. I'm not big on medical models of mental and emotional health, as you may have gathered. No one is arguing that it is a get out clause btw - stop putting words in my mouth.

How do you want them applied then?

Yes, but you don't seem to know what the word atonement means.

I clearly do, having posted up two different definitions; more to the point, you don't agree that suffering can effect reparation of sin. Well fair enough, but do stop parroting my supposed ignorance of the term, it gets tedious.

There's a streak of Christianity a mile wide in your posts. Atonement, retribution, ruthless revelation, sociological epistles, moral certainty etc.

There you go again with the Christian stuff - "sin". Personally I reject the notion of "sin".

Our legal system is founded in Christianity, and I don't have to believe in God to recognise the worth of what is, basically, moral philosophy. I also reject some fundamental Christian notions: I wouldn't call for drug legalization if I believe in the Christian model of sin (turn of phrase, got bored of "criminal act", sin just means transgression of a given moral principle).

Oh, and what does sociology and epistles have to do with Christianity: epistle is simply a formal letter, and of the Bible's many faults, social "science" isn't amongst them!

Control is not a static thing. It is dynamic and contingent on circumstance. As it happens, I think that yes, people in groups in certain circumstances can commit then most terrible atrocities. However, I still stand by what I wrote - people are capable of a greater degree of control than you give them credit for. You appear to have a pathological need for imposing your moral order on everyone else.

We all want to impose our moral order. Unless you don't actually want society to treat criminals with compassion. I can distinguish between what I personally believe and what I want "imposed" on other people: I can assure you that the two bear little relation to each other.

Actually fuck it, your view is sooooo far apart from mine I don't think we'll ever find any common ground. You come across as someone with deep rooted Christian views, very rigid and inflexible thinking, an almost pathological need to impose order otherwise your world will descend into chaos. You see everything in strict black and white, unable to see that people are actually a complex mix of good and bad. To be honest you come across as a bit of a nutter.

I could say exactly the same about you given your views on your sociological explanations, but I don't, because that's deeply tedious, and I've the good manners not to sum someone up by their views on a posting board.

You seem unable to separate a belief that the law must be absolute from a belief that the world is black and white. Presumably you want the law to deal in shades of grey: how then do you propose an adversarial system rooted in absolutes adapts itself, and how do you propose it restrain criminals, and deters potential criminals, when there is no good or bad, but only a gradient of morality?

 

[Blagsta]

You want to impose your morality on everyone else. You claim that people can't be trusted, yet you propose to put your entire trust in the state and the legal system (presumably run by you and people like you - funny how authoratarians always think its others that can't be trusted). Tbh, what you propose, (especially when coupled with language of "infestation" and "scum" and "moral certainty") isn't far off fascism. No thanks mate.

 

[Azrael]

Using language like you do - infestation, scum, chav, pikey etc makes me think you are a thouroughly nasty individual tbh.

A damn sight less nasty than the individuals I apply it to. People who intimidate and abuse other vulnerable people for pleasure, and poor, working class kids are foremost amongst their victims. "Chav" is simply a name for a criminal tribe, so why exactly is it "nasty", any more than yardie or yobbo is "nasty".

I don't act the way chavs act, so you can call me a thouroughly nasty individual all you like, water off a duck's mate.

This is exactly the reason people get so angry with the Left over crime. It's genuinely sad you fail to see that.

No, most normal men do not rape women.

Of course they don't. Some, however, do.

Rather contradictory. On the one hand, you think rape is committed by normal men, on the other hand you take issue with "all men are rapists" (which is not the phrase btw - it is "all men are potential rapists" and it has varying interpretations). Make your mind up. Do "normal" (all, everday) men commit rape?

Not contradictory at all. Some men, who are otherwise perfectly normal in every respect, inexplicably commit rape in a given situation (or murder, manslaughter, GBH, you name it). That is not the same as saying all men are potential rapists, which is misandry of the first order. Wonder how those feminists would like it if men went round saying "all women are potential whores". Not very much I imagine.

I didn't say it was. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You said "normal, healthy people don't commit these acts", so if that didn't imply sick people commited them, what did it imply?

No, I don't deny that. The relevance to what I posted is...what?

As I said above, you said normal, healthy people don't commit certain crimes. You now say they do. Bit contradictory.

You're living in a fantasy world.

Rather less fantastical, I think, than claiming that criminals won't exploit these "mitigating circumstances" and sociological models for all they are worth.

 

[Jonti]

What a scientific view I have...

... it was a Thomas Hobbes quote.

If you would ground your thinking in the findings of science, Thomas Hobbes is not a good source

The scientific understanding of humans has advanced quite a bit since he was about.

 

[Azrael]

You want to impose your morality on everyone else. You claim that people can't be trusted, yet you propose to put your entire trust in the state and the legal system (presumably run by you and people like you - funny how authoratarians always think its others that can't be trusted). Tbh, what you propose, (especially when coupled with language of "infestation" and "scum" and "moral certainty") isn't far off fascism. No thanks mate.

A Dyslexic cryptographer would be more coherent than this. Liberty under the law (a law bound in turn by rigid constitutional restraints) is "fascism"? A legal system predicated on the JS Mill test is "fascism"? What bunk. I never for a second suggested we "put our trust" in the law: those rigid restraints are an explicit repudiation of that view. They're needed because I mistrust all concentrations of power. As for the view I want the law run by "people like me", I'd have thought my comment that jurists are far better qualified than I to calculate the moral balance sheet suggests against that.

Again I say, you don't want your morality to be adopted by the law? You don't want suspects to be "understood" and helped to "explore" that root cause of their crimes with the aid of sociological models?

Any other points you want to reply to of course welcome.

 

[Azrael]

Oh yeah, and if we're not governed by the law, what should we be governed by?

 

[Azrael]

If you would ground your thinking in the findings of science, Thomas Hobbes is not a good source

The scientific understanding of humans has advanced quite a bit since he was about.

Apart from the solitary part it's a close enough match; plus "solitary" in the way Hobbes meant it (each reliant on their own power to survive) isn't so very far from nature.

 

[Blagsta]

Blah blah blah. You sound like a fairly fucked up individual tbh. A psychotherapist could have a field day analysing the language you use.

 

[detective-boy]

Come along to the project where I work and talk to our clients.

If that is the source of your information, I would suggest you ask them to bring in the custody records and doctors report forms relating to their time in police detention and then claim that the police have "usually" failed to provide medical provision and comply with whatever is directed by a medical practitioner.

They may complain about what treatment they received (or didn't) but, as I have repeatedly said, that is very different from saying that the police officers and / or the police service prevented it from happening.

If you want to know what happens in police custody suites, become a Lay Visitor.

There. Are. No. Secrets.

They can appear, unannounced at any station at any time and are immediately admitted to the custody areas. They can (and do) view custody records, custody suite CCTV and speak to any detainee they wish with very few restrictions.

 

[Blagsta]

If that is the source of your information, I would suggest you ask them to bring in the custody records and doctors report forms relating to their time in police detention and then claim that the police have "usually" failed to provide medical provision and comply with whatever is directed by a medical practitioner.

They may complain about what treatment they received (or didn't) but, as I have repeatedly said, that is very different from saying that the police officers and / or the police service prevented it from happening.

I find your constant defence of the police rather irritating tbh. As you're fond of saying to others - your prejudices are showing.

 

[Azrael]

Blah blah blah. You sound like a fairly fucked up individual tbh. A psychotherapist could have a field day analysing the language you use.

Goodness, when you admit you've run out of answers you don't do it by halves. Rather strange from a poster who claims to value shades of grey so highly, but no matter, the frankness is appreciated.

 

[Blagsta]

Well your arguments are so completely barking mad that its pointless debating with you.

How was your potty training btw? Is your house ultra ultra tidy?

 

[Azrael]

Looking for pointers?

Strange bloke.

 

[Jonti]

Apart from the solitary part it's a close enough match; plus "solitary" in the way Hobbes meant it (each reliant on their own power to survive) isn't so very far from nature.

Do you really want to defend the proposition "Leviathan incorporates a modern scientific understanding of the human animal"?

 

[detective-boy]

I find your constant defence of the police rather irritating tbh.

And I find that peoples constant slagging off of the police over things which are simply not true rather irritating too.

Which is why I challenge them.

There are lots of things which are bad about the police and how they operate. Many of them are organisational rather than individual. I would like to see them change. I criticise them whenever it is relevant.

But when people like you criticise the police over something which simply and demonstrably isn't true, you undermine the chance of changing anything anytime soon.

I know that PACE IS complied with. I have applied it as a Custody Officer and worked with it as an investigator. I know dozens of criminal lawyers who would repeat exactly what I have said. I have explained to you why police officers could not ignore it wholesale even if they wanted too. You simply refuse to accept the truth.

Try questioning what people tell you before swallowing their tales of woe hook line and sinker. And think what explanations there may be for the things which they complain of. And work out who is / may be actually to blame. Otherwise you will gain a reputation as someone who cries "Wolf!".

 

[Azrael]

Do you really want to defend the proposition "Leviathan incorporates a modern scientific understanding of the human animal"?

Erm no, but I'll defend the proposition that it's relevant enough to include the quote on a posting board.

 

[Blagsta]

And I find that peoples constant slagging off of the police over things which are simply not true rather irritating too.

Which is why I challenge them.

There are lots of things which are bad about the police and how they operate. Many of them are organisational rather than individual. I would like to see them change. I criticise them whenever it is relevant.

But when people like you criticise the police over something which simply and demonstrably isn't true, you undermine the chance of changing anything anytime soon.

I know that PACE IS complied with. I have applied it as a Custody Officer and worked with it as an investigator. I know dozens of criminal lawyers who would repeat exactly what I have said. I have explained to you why police officers could not ignore it wholesale even if they wanted too. You simply refuse to accept the truth.

Try questioning what people tell you before swallowing their tales of woe hook line and sinker. And think what explanations there may be for the things which they complain of. And work out who is / may be actually to blame. Otherwise you will gain a reputation as someone who cries "Wolf!".

Your complete refusal to listen to other people's experiences of the police is really fucking irritating. Please listen for once in your life to what people tell you about their experiences with the police instead of your usual knee jerk defence of them (and no, I'm not just talking about the subject under discussion here).

 

[detective-boy]

Your complete refusal to listen to other people's experiences of the police is really fucking irritating. Please listen for once in your life to what people tell you about their experiences with the police instead of your usual knee jerk defence of them (and no, I'm not just talking about the subject under discussion here).

I've listened. I've heard what you've said. You've said your clients tell you that the police "usually" fail to provide any appropriate medical care and / or medication. I have no problem with the fact you are saying that. I have no problem with the fact that they have told you that. They may even believe it.

But it will not be true and it will be proveable, one way or the other, in every individual case. There may be some instances where it hasn't been done properly. There may be some cases where the doctors haven't provided the best / acceptable treatment.

But when you say maintain the the police "usually" withold medical care and / or medication you are wrong.

Can you not see the distinction I am making. Can you not understand that your clients may have a perception that it is the police making decisions when it is in fact a doctor. Can you not understand that your clients may actually not even think to distinguish between the police and the doctors?

If you still wish to maintain your sweeping assertion that the police as an organisation or as individuals "usually" (i.e. in the majority of cases) withold medical care or medication then I have challenged you to provide some evidence. You haven't and, until you do, I will continue to tell you, you are wrong.

 

[Blagsta]

You may well be right that it's the police doctor who is responsible. However that really makes very little difference to our clients. They get arrested and get their methadone withheld. That's not on.

 

[detective-boy]

However that really makes very little difference to our clients.

Of course I appreciate that it makes little difference in that way.

But recognising the actual source of the issue makes a huge difference in being able to address it. If you want to make a difference pressure needs to be exerted on the medical profession - there is some sort of Association of Forensic Medical Examiners and they would be a good place to start.

Whilst the police service obviously have an interest in the outcome, they have no direct way of changing anything. It would surely be far better to engage them as a supporter in the approach to the medical profession then seek to blame them. For instance I, as an investigator, have every concern that any evidence obtained by my carefuly planned interview strategy, and my carefully exercised interview techniques, is (a) reliable and (b) admissible. I have significant concerns over the issue of interviewing people sufferig drug withdrawal and would quite happily place those before the medical profession who, like many others, tend to see issues from their own viewpoint. I would also challenge the current legal assumption that something said by someone under the influence of a controlled drug is automatically less reliable than something said by the same person undergoing withdrawal symptoms from that drug (which is one of the planks underpinning the "no heroin (or even methadone) for people in police detention and awaiting interview" regime as I understand it).

 

[dash]

Regarding the original question starting this thread:

Drug addicts argue their human rights are being infringed by being forced to go cold turkey when they are admitted to prison.

Now without anyone mentioning its 'PC gawn mad' what are peoples thoughts on this?

Is being forced to go cold turkey really the same as being denied medication, like withholding salbutamol from an asthmatic?

AFAIK coming off smack is not physically dangerous in the way that delirium tremens can be to an alcoholic, or even coming off a benzodiazepine addiction.

Perhaps there is an element of self-dramatisation at work on the part of the heroin addicts themselves, fitting into a long history of the same from De Quincy to Trainspotting . . . the supposed ease and suddenness of addiction and the 'horrors' of withdrawal. Maybe, too, parts of the medical establishment and some drug rehab workers collude in this unwittingly.

 

[Blagsta]

Well if someone is already legally scripted, then yes, it is withholding medication.

 

[dash]

Yes, I see your point re procedure. Prison authorities shouldn't be overriding the doctors, and prison probably isn't a good place to discontinue methadone prescription anyway.

Guess am unethusiastic about the payments, which averaged just over £3,800 per person. Compare and contrast with criminal injuries compensations, not always noted for their generosity.