"Triple killer Joanne Dennehy is seeking compensation for her solitary confinement in jail claiming it is a violation of her human rights."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-35801910
There may be more to this than meets the eye but either way, I'd have thought solitary was good for her and good for the other inmates. She should just be told she's being punished, and that it's not the same as being given the wrong type of room in a hotel.
|
Isn't getting banged up for offences you've committed supposed to violate your human rights? Surely that's the whole point of incarcerating people.
I hope la Dennehy stands no chance of compensation. Indeed she should be charged for any official time her case absorbs.
|
|
True, not the same but I wonder if it is the wrong type of treatment and if Broadmoor might be more appropriate.
|
|
She should consider the up side of her accomodation, she should try a submarine.
|
A thought that occurs to me, 'is she not dangerous to the general prison population and could we expect a law suit from another prisoner about putting her in danger'.
I would have said the risk to others was adequate justification, but that does beg the question, should she not be in a mental hospital like Broadmoor?
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Mon 14 Mar 16 at 15:33
|
It seems to me quite right in principle that a prisoner should have the right to contest their treatment. Acts by the government/authorities, with very few exceptions around existential threats to the nation, should always be challengeable. In most countries citizens, including prisoners have constitutional rights. For all it's (mostly supposed) defects the European Convention, brought into domestic law by the Human Rights Act, gives us a proxy by which we can exercise 'constitutional' rights.
If she can convince Mr Justice Hickinbottom then she's got a case. Nice bloke (and an ardent supporter of Walsall FC), he won't be a pushover though.
Michael Gove though will be pi**ing himself laughing at way this sort of thing can be punted by those opposed to the HRA.
|
>> should have the right to contest their treatment<<
Did she give her victims that right?
Pat
|
Bromp gives a patient explanation of the legal and ethical background, and Pat treats us to that bit of simplistic crowd pleasing. (Just watch the thumbs accumulate.)
Dennehy is a person who's done bad things, but she's still a person. We've defined a code for how such people should be treated and, as Bromp explained, we need to be seen to abide by that code. Anything less demeans us all.
|
She disregarded the human rights of her victims, one of which she left within a half a mile of our yard
If you take away another's rights then you should lose all entitlement to have any of your own.
We all have a code of practice we live by, despite the difficulties we encounter.
Most of us manage it even when the going gets tough, she didn't.
She's in prison because she's evil, if she was sick she would be in a secure hospital.
Pat
|
|
Never heard of 2 wrongs do not make it right?
|
Or an eye for an eye?
Everyone is entitled to a point of view and different people express it in different ways. Get over it.
|
>> Or an eye for an eye?
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone is entitled to a point of view and different people express it in different
>> ways. Get over it.
Its a discussion forum, get over it.
|
|
Discussion doesn't equate to unjustified personal insult in most peoples' mind, except those of a few people here.
|
>> Discussion doesn't equate to unjustified personal insult in most peoples' mind, except those of a
>> few people here.
Not sure how anyone can possibly justify the quoting a philosophical line about ethics from a poem as an "Unjustified personal insult" but then to compound it by throwing in an unjustified personal insult of your own is deeply hypocritical.
However I got over it. Clearly you didn't.
|
|
My comment was aimed at WdB and I should have done two separate posts. Apologies for any confusion.
|
|
So what I wrote was an 'unjustified personal insult' on Pat, was it? Or was it a comment on a particular view she had expressed, in what I thought was an unpalatable and poorly reasoned way?
|
Looking at both of your posts your tone was deliberately patronising IMO. My wording in my response to Zero was a bit OTT in this instance. I'm going out now :-)
|
>>and poorly reasoned way?<<
I didn't give any reason for my opinion , I don't have to since you seem to feel that a sarcastic put down is all it warrants.
So often we see some on here who feel their opinion is the only one worthy of debate, and they also seem to feel they have no reason to qualify their opinion apart from a sarcastic put down as it's so obviously the only one anyone should ever have.
I'm looking for the word that aptly describes that attitude and can't seem to find it, can anyone help?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 15 Mar 16 at 17:52
|
|
"Poorly reasoned" refers to how you arrived at an opinion, not how, ot indeed whether, you explained or justified it.
|
>>I'm looking for the word that aptly describes that attitude
Exasperated.
|
>>So often we see some on here who feel their opinion is the only one worthy of debate,
Yup, that describes you very well. And when anybody tries to debate with you or challenge your opinions then you sulk and complain. Indeed, often you play the sexist card or engage in class warfare at that point.
What's the point in visiting a discussion forum if you want one where everybody agrees with you?
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Wed 16 Mar 16 at 11:08
|
>> >>So often we see some on here who feel their opinion is the only one
>> worthy of debate,
>>
>> Yup, that describes you very well.
I don't think the evidence in this case bears that out.
>>And when anybody tries to debate with you or
>> challenge your opinions then you sulk and complain. Indeed, often you play the sexist card
>> or engage in class warfare at that point.
Let's see...
Pat said in her first post to this thread:
Did she give her victims that right? [to contest their treatment]
WdB replied to Pat's post:
>>Bromp gives a patient explanation of the legal and ethical background, and Pat treats us to that bit of simplistic crowd pleasing.
That sounds like a put down to me, but moving on, Pat replies, expanding on her view, in her second post:
>>She disregarded the human rights of her victims, one of which she left within a half a mile of our yard
>>If you take away another's rights then you should lose all entitlement to have any of your own.
>>We all have a code of practice we live by, despite the difficulties we encounter.
>>Most of us manage it even when the going gets tough, she didn't.
>>She's in prison because she's evil, if she was sick she would be in a secure hospital.
and then comes the second sneer from WdB:
>>See what I mean?
Clearly this wasn't going well, and WdB's replies came across to me as supercilious. Perhaps it was just me...then this from Smoke:
>>Discussion doesn't equate to unjustified personal insult in most peoples' mind, except those of a few people here.
That was in a reply to Zero, who took the huff, and for avoidance of doubt Smokie clarifies:
>>My comment was aimed at WdB.
who replies
>>So what I wrote was an 'unjustified personal insult' on Pat, was it?
>>Or was it a comment on a particular view she had expressed,
>>in what I thought was an unpalatable and poorly reasoned way?
Smokie:
>>Looking at both of your posts your tone was deliberately patronising IMO.
I agree.
This is far from the worst example (which wouldn't have been WdB) but it clearly wasn't imagined or triggered by Pat, and it isn't necessary.
Over and out of this thread.
|
Bit of context would have been nice, Manatee. You neglect to mention Bromp's knowledgeable and well-put explanation of the legal and ethical background. Pat's rhetorical question about victims was a poor and lazy response to that, which is what prompted me to write what I did.
As for 'class war', no-one - not Mapmaker, not NoFM and not me - is making fun of Pat's social origins, although I will continue to point out how she plays them up when it suits her, and how she likes to claim a special knowledge of 'real people'. (Note her assertion in this thread that she had a tough upbringing but didn't resort to killing people!) And I for one will continue to challenge poor arguments and unpalatable views; it wouldn't be much of a discussion site otherwise.
As for Westpig and his idea that the police would do a better job if only it weren't hamstrung by human rights, it's hard to know where to begin, except perhaps to say that a would-be British Stalin would find it hard to get a toehold under the present system. Take away the basic protections, though, and that could change.
First they came for the Socialists etc
|
>> (Note her assertion in this thread that she had a tough
>> upbringing but didn't resort to killing people!)
What I actually said was
>>We all have a code of practice we live by, despite the difficulties we encounter.
Most of us manage it even when the going gets tough, she didn't.
<<
Very different to your interpretation of it and as you will see I made no reference whatsoever to my past or upbringing. As you well know I was referring to the vast majority of the population.
>> And I for one will continue to challenge poor arguments and unpalatable views; it wouldn't be much of a discussion site otherwise.<<
It may be an unpalatable view to you, but you didn't challenge it. You used a sarcastic one liner to dismiss it and indeed to try and ridicule the person making it.
Had you have bothered to ask I would have told you that I feel exactly the same as most hardworking taxpayer.
I'm appalled that all of us will be funding this bid which she could take to the ECHR and will costs us dearly in Legal Aid payments.
I do feel that upon a guilty verdict all rights to legal aid should be stopped for any prisoner unless an appeal against the verdict has been lodged and allowed.
The payments made to long term prisoners by way of compensation and legal aid are a disgrace compared to the hoops the sick/disabled and homeless have to go through to get a basic income. They have no perks. No way to fund a fight for an appeal from benefit cuts in the ECHR, so why do we allow prisoners this?
>>she likes to claim a special knowledge of 'real people'.<<
I don't claim a special knowledge but like a few others on here I do Charity work, which brings me into contact with some very, very sad cases.
I do frequently feel that people who have never had that contact, or experienced it themselves,prefer not to be reminded that it exists and in far greater numbers than some would like to think.
I despair when I see we can find funds to support a criminal but not our own hard working population.
Pat
|
|
Spot on, Pat - sock it to 'em!
|
Well, it might be if it didn't amount to 'Human rights are for people I approve of'. That's not how it works; respecting the rights of everyone equally may seem distasteful but it's ultimately how we ensure there'll be someone to respect our own rights when the need arises - and we never know when that may be.
I remain unsocked.
|
>> I remain unsocked.
>>
Always had Roger down as a socks'n'sandals merchant. White socks, of course.
|
Do you not see the problem with the State deciding which people may appeal to a Human Rights court and which may not?
OK, clearly its beyond Roger, but for the rest of you the danger should be obvious. Its fine while your State is benign, but what if it gets the wrong leadership?
|
>> Do you not see the problem with the State deciding which people may appeal to
>> a Human Rights court and which may not?
>>
>> OK, clearly its beyond Roger, but for the rest of you the danger should be
>> obvious. Its fine while your State is benign, but what if it gets the wrong
>> leadership?
First in the Firing line if you do? The hard working population.
|
>> if it didn't amount to 'Human rights are for people I approve of'<<
It didn't and it doesn't, as you well know.
But if that's the best you can do.....
>> the State deciding which people may appeal to a Human Rights court and which may not?<<
Once again that is not what I'm proposing, as you well know too.
Look at the thread title and you will know we're talking about convicted criminals in prison.
I'm objecting to their human rights being funded by the tax payer unless they are being allowed to appeal, nothing more.
Indeed, if they can convince someone else to fund the appeal to ECHR privately or have the funds to do it at their own expense, I have no objection.
This would at least mean that prison is more of a deterrent as it should be.
It will never be a rehabilitation route or a punishment for hardened criminals as it stands.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 10:05
|
You're taking one extreme - and quite possibly absurd - case and trying to make out that any prisoner's challenge to their conditions is equally undeserving. (This is the technique that the rightwing press has used to foment disapproval of people receiving benefits for housing or incapacity, or guilty of the offence of being foreign.)
Any public cost in this case will be insignificant - so the 'hard working taxpayers' needn't fear it taking away their NHS (George and his friends are already working on other plans for that anyway.)
Might be a good time to suggest that Smokie's title for the thread didn't exactly set it up for a fair and amicable debate!
|
1 "Do you not see the problem with the State deciding which people may appeal to a Human Rights court and which may not?"
2 "Any public cost in this case will be insignificant -"
1 I would suggest that it's not a question who can appeal. It is a question of who should pay for that appeal. Funding of legal costs by the government is far from automatic. It seems far from clear whether in this case that there is an issue that merits the use of public find to support such an appeal.
2 The cost of an appeal is far from insignificant. Been to a solicitors lately let alone hired a QC?
|
|
Say it costs £100,000. That's a tiny drop in the public finance bucket - for a case at the extreme of the distribution. Extreme cases happen; the fallacy is to assume all cases are similarly extreme.
|
|
It might be a tiny drop in the bucket but its a significant sum that could surely have been better used to better effect elsewhere. In fact your very statement highlights all that is wrong with a lot of state spending. £100,000 of government spending isn't seen as "real money".
|
|
In that sense, it isn't. Most of us don't need a £100,000 human rights case, or a £100,000 heart transplant - or for that matter a £100,000,000 Typhoon. The principle of collective funding allows us all to benefit from the availability of these things without having to find more than a small share of the cost.
|
>> I'm objecting to their human rights being funded by the tax payer unless they are being allowed to appeal, nothing more
Who in God's name should support the human rights of its citizens if not the State (tax payer)?
They're called HUMAN rights. All humans. Not just the ones you approve of and not just the nice ones.
And if the State and people have decided that humans have rights, then the State should support the system. Who else?
Do you really not understand that?
And I don't care if we fund 100 ridiculous, frivolous cases every week if it means that the entire population can be secure in the knowledge that it is protected from a malevolent, evil or careless State.
And all your silly little ideas would only serve to make the system subjective, the one thing it is supposed not to be.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 11:20
|
>> I'm objecting to their human rights being funded by the tax payer unless they are
>> being allowed to appeal, nothing more.
Mark has dealt with this though I don't know why he found it necessary to gild the point with a gratuitous insult.
>> Indeed, if they can convince someone else to fund the appeal to ECHR privately or
>> have the funds to do it at their own expense, I have no objection.
The result of this is pretty obvious isn't it? Those criminals who've made money and concealed it from the authorities, or who have rich friends can defend their rights. Ordinary prisoners or those who's crimes however heinous, are driven by dark forces can rot. Tory free market in human rights - Osborne would love that.
Alternatively the disenfranchised can join the throng of unrepresented 'litigants in person' already clogging up the courts.
|
>> I don't know why he found it necessary to
>> gild the point with a gratuitous insult.
As opposed to a gratuitous comment about the Tories?
In my case because i find dealing with obtuse ignorance frustrating.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 11:46
|
>> As opposed to a gratuitous comment about the Tories?
Apples/Pears analogy alert. Osborne is a national politician and a fair target for criticism.
Courtesy in debate is altogether different.
|
>> In my case because i find dealing with obtuse ignorance frustrating.
>>
>>And all your silly little ideas <<
You accused me a couple of weeks ago in another thread of making silly little posts and told someone to I would only stay in my 'comfort zone'.
Well, the above is why.
I can socialise both for business and pleasure with people who think pretty much like you and most on here. We can enjoy a good debate and discuss most of the matters discussed on here. I enjoy that, even though I'm often the only one who disagrees with the majority.
They're are happy to listen, then to counter my views and I'm always prepared to expand the discussion.
We have respect for others.
I'll leave it there, you can massage you're own ego.
Pat
|
"The result of this is pretty obvious isn't it?"
Yes - just as with 'Legal Aid', the lawyers make shedloads of money.
|
>> Yes - just as with 'Legal Aid', the lawyers make shedloads of money.
Sad but true. I wish there was an obvious, workable and fair way of preventing that. Or if there is one, that I could think of it.
|
I'm objecting to their human rights being funded by the tax payer unless they are
>> being allowed to appeal, nothing more.
>>
>> Indeed, if they can convince someone else to fund the appeal to ECHR privately or
>> have the funds to do it at their own expense, I have no objection.
It does seem that way but like others have said it's starts a precedent that's it's only for the wealthy. And who knows when we might need legal help? None of us know what is around the corner.
|
>> Over and out of this thread.
>>
Thank you, well put and fully supported by me.
|
One of the differences between those inside doing bird, and those of us on the outside not doing bird, is that we, on the whole, respect other people human rights. Now if we stop respecting the human rights of those inside we become like them.
Now the main question is, that no-one has covered here, is "what is a human right"
I would suggest that being given the right to vote, is not a human right. I would also think that the right to appeal to the highest legal court available over perceived inhumane treatment, is a human right. Like it or not (I dont in this case) you have to stick up for the right to use the legal process.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 18:04
|
Is the right to vote a human right? I am not sure, but I tend to think so having been places where they don't have it.
But right or no, if you want people to become part of a society when they finish their jail term, then surely the best way is to try and keep them interested in it, not excluded from it.
As an aside, in Chile, they campaigned for the right not to vote. After the dictatorship handed over power* they made voting compulsory.
*which wasn't as clear cut as it sounds.
|
>> After the dictatorship handed over power* they made voting compulsory.
It's compulsory to vote in Australia I think.
|
>> Is the right to vote a human right? I am not sure, but I tend
>> to think so having been places where they don't have it.
Given that there are a number of people out of jail, who are legally disenfranchised anyway, I dont think it can be counted as a human right.
|
>> Given that there are a number of people out of jail, who are legally disenfranchised
>> anyway, I dont think it can be counted as a human right.
Who are the people out of jail who are disenfranchised?
And if they are why are their Human Rights not also engaged.
Binary answers won't cut the mustard :-P
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 17 Mar 16 at 19:50
|
Who are the people out of jail who are disenfranchised?
Anyone under 18 - are teenagers not human?
Second thoughts.
|
There's a list of human rights as defined by the United Nations here. I'd not seen the list before, because I'd not bothered to look. How lucky I am to live in a country that allows me that luxury.
www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
No mention of voting, specifically, and to my mind they get woollier towards the end, but maybe that's just me.
|
The prisoner voting thing is about the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically an interpretation of Protocol 1/Article 3. It's pretty abstruse stuff and current judicial interpretations SEEM to favour UK Govt line.
Fact that other groups like 16-19 or non citizen residents don't have a franchise is neither here or there. They too could challenge with appropriate support and funding.
|
>> Fact that other groups like 16-19 or non citizen residents don't have a franchise is
>> neither here or there.
Only because it doesn't support your argument.
|
>> Only because it doesn't support your argument.
As I implied, if you'd not selectively quoted, they too can challenge their exclusion. Either they've not done so to date or challenges made are not publicised by UK media.
|
It's pretty abstruse stuff
www.thefreedictionary.com/abstruse
for anyone else who hasn't heard it before.
|
>> >> Given that there are a number of people out of jail, who are legally
>> disenfranchised
>> >> anyway, I dont think it can be counted as a human right.
>>
>> Who are the people out of jail who are disenfranchised?
all 16 to 18 year olds. People living and working here who are not nationals - LOADS of examples
>> And if they are why are their Human Rights not also engaged.
As I said, I think the right to vote is not a human right. As I have shown above.
|
>> Yup, that describes you very well. And when anybody tries to debate with you or
>> challenge your opinions then you sulk and complain. Indeed, often you play the sexist card
>> or engage in class warfare at that point.
Show me where I've played the 'sexist' card Mappy?
Class warfare yes, I admit when I'm belittled repeatedly by one or threeon here, I will fight back with everything I have to be treated as an equal to any single one of you. It's what I've worked for and achieved all my life and I don't intend to be treated disrespectfully by anyone who doesn't even know me.
>> What's the point in visiting a discussion forum if you want one where everybody agrees
>> with you?
When WdeB, and you are capable of discussion, without being disparaging and downright rude simply because you don't like the person stating that view, then you could 'probably' call this a discussion forum.
As it stands it's more like a three man ego massaging parlour.
Pat
|
>>
>> As it stands it's more like a three man ego massaging parlour.
>>
I like it. Got to be worth a thumb
|
Not wishing to go off topic......really!
There was the first egg laid yesterday CG, at NTU.
As of daybreak today yours are showing a lot of interest, but no eggs yet!
Pat
|
You have your first egg!
Pat
|
|
Walked past the cathedral half an hour ago. Hoped to see peregrine in flight but on nest I believe. I remarked on the curious lack of pigeons in the cathedral close!
|
>> See what I mean?
Pat is clearly in the 1/ Punishment(revenge) camp, a not uncommon and understandable human reaction, one indeed much (oft in the past) pushed by certain religions.
However, Punishment / revenge is a motivation often driving those who harm, maim and kill, so what separates those who advocate it, from those who do it?
Don't get me wrong, if anyone harmed anyone precious to me I would be planning to extract a disgustingly abhorrent revenge. But at least I would have the excuse of personal involvement and emotion. Not sure having a body dumped near where I work is sufficient to use that excuse.
|
>> Don't get me wrong, if anyone harmed anyone precious to me I would be planning
>> to extract a disgustingly abhorrent revenge. But at least I would have the excuse of
>> personal involvement and emotion. Not sure having a body dumped near where I work is
>> sufficient to use that excuse.
>>
What happens if people have consideration for others beyond their own family set up? You know, looking after the poor, the weak, those not able to look after themselves, the innocent.
What happens if a particular family does not have a Zero to commit mayhem for them?
|
>> What happens if people have consideration for others beyond their own family set up? You
>> know, looking after the poor, the weak, those not able to look after themselves, the
>> innocent.
>>
>> What happens if a particular family does not have a Zero to commit mayhem for
>> them?
You have mangled my post. I was not advocating mayhem, I was merely pointing out my own personal shortcomings and attempting to throw some justification into it.
As far as looking after the poor, week and those not able to look after themselves, Revenge is not a good choice for their menu, warm or cold.
Protection is what they need, and no-one has yet justified or proven that taking away someones human rights in prison, makes prison any more effective as a deterrent and therefore a from of protection.
|
>>See what I mean?<<
Don't you think your predictably sarcastic remark here >> (Just watch the thumbs accumulate.)<< provoked that reaction?
I do.
Pat
|
>>If you take away another's rights then you should lose all entitlement to have any of your own.
Absolutely, I entirely agree.
Now, what should happen to you since you're taking away her rights?
Or are you saying that taking away someone's rights is actually perfectly fine as long as you approve of the reason?
|
>> Or are you saying that taking away someone's rights is actually perfectly fine as long
>> as you approve of the reason?
>>
Yes, basically.
If the State has to step in and do something to someone because they've badly overstepped the mark and affected other people (who are often vulnerable)... then they go to jail.... they get Zero's 1-4... then they can have their rights back when they get out again.
If they don't like it..tough tit...don't commit the crime.
|
>> If the State has to step in and do something to someone because
But what happens when then State does not recognise your basic human rights but then gets a leader like Stalin, Pinochet, Galtieri, Saddam, Hitler or so many more?
That's why your rights must be protected, even against the state, even when the State thinks its right, and when when the State is right.
|
>> But what happens when then State does not recognise your basic human rights but then
>> gets a leader like Stalin, Pinochet, Galtieri, Saddam, Hitler or so many more?
>>
>> That's why your rights must be protected, even against the state, even when the State
>> thinks its right, and when when the State is right.
>>
If we ended up with a Stalin, do you think the Human Rights Act would stop him?
I don't think so. History is littered with dictators that change the rules/laws to suit themselves.
|
>> She's in prison because she's evil, if she was sick she would be in a
>> secure hospital.
Do really think it's that clear cut?
Pretty sure the press reports suggest she's got various diagnoses. Borderline personality disorder, that sort of thing. Not easy to diagnose or treat
But I'm sure she'd be fine if she just got a grip on herself....
|
>> (Just watch the thumbs accumulate.)
Yep, just put mine on there
|
>> Bromp gives a patient explanation of the legal and ethical background
.... from a do-gooder perspective
>>, and Pat treats us
>> to that bit of simplistic crowd pleasing.
In your opinion. It might surprise you to know many people do not agree with you.. and I am one of them.
|
|
No surprise there. Your arguments tend to be simplistic too.
|
>> No surprise there. Your arguments tend to be simplistic too.
>>
In that case, you ought to be able to understand them then.
|
|
Oh dear, WP. You might like to wander from the playground to the library, look the word up and try again.
|
>> Oh dear, WP. You might like to wander from the playground to the library, look
>> the word up and try again.
You just show yourself up posting things like that.
|
>> should she not be in a mental hospital like Broadmoor?
Bedlam... what a place that must be, only for the brave or callous.
Evil psychopaths like Ronnie Kray and the fellow who killed the boy-racer in the layby have to be put somewhere though.
Painless euthanasia is a tempting thought but we don't do that here although others do. I would imagine lavish use is made of the so-called chemical cosh, heavy heavy tranks bad for the patient long term. But hey, as they say, what else is there to do? If the staff aren't safe from violent attack they won't take the job.
|
Broadmoor isn't a prison, it's a hospital. Staffed by nurses not prison wardens. I imagine she was put through the Broadmoor entrance exams at the time she was sentenced but failed them.
My daughter did a stint in Broadmoor. Quite scary but I think she's worked in scarier places since - Broadmoor runs by the rules and there are full complements of staff whereas the wards she's worked on were ones where the patients have been sectioned, usually for criminal offences and often for assaults, but staffing levels weren't always up to scratch and she was involved with a couple of nasty incidents that could have turned out very much worse. She's had one incident where the police refused to attend, wrongly as it turned out, but it put the staff at a really high degree of risk.
|
>> She's had one incident where the police refused to attend, wrongly
>> as it turned out, but it put the staff at a really high degree of
>> risk.
That scenario is becoming more common nowadays... because.... the NHS at times doesn't seem to have much of a back up system for when (rather than if) there's a violence problem in a local secure ward... so the casual fall back was 'call the police'.
The police nowadays are increasingly saying 'use your own procedures first and only call us if it gets beyond what your contingency plan(s) can cope with'.
|
>> That scenario is becoming more common nowadays... because.... the NHS at times doesn't seem to
>> have much of a back up system for when (rather than if) there's a violence
>> problem in a local secure ward... so the casual fall back was 'call the police'.
>>
>> The police nowadays are increasingly saying 'use your own procedures first and only call us
>> if it gets beyond what your contingency plan(s) can cope with'.
Mental Health still suffers from a stigma, its not sexy, does not attract sufficient finance, the best talent, resources or attention. At best its tolerated as a service. It shows at almost every level.
|
|
Another drum the LibDems have been banging for years, but nobody wants to know. Another reason we miss their moderating but unfashionable influence in government.
|
"Mental Health still suffers from a stigma, its not sexy"
Oh it is. I've humped some crazy women in my time.
|
>> "Mental Health still suffers from a stigma, its not sexy"
>>
>> Oh it is. I've humped some crazy women in my time.
yeah, they must have been mad.
|
>> I would have said the risk to others was adequate justification, but that does beg
>> the question, should she not be in a mental hospital like Broadmoor?
Broadmoor is a male only establishment these days.
|
If I had to go to prison I think I would want my own room. Have you seen the sort of people they put in prison?
;-)
|
|
Can convicted prisoners vote in the UK?
|
|
No, but the soft left and E.U. botherers are pushing for it.
|
>> No, but the soft left and E.U. botherers are pushing for it.
Roger here is some Irony for you. You advocate leaving the EU, because of interference in our laws and justice system. You advocate Norway as a shining example of how we should go forwards.
Here is Norway being sued through the European court of Human rights.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35807961
|
>> Can convicted prisoners vote in the UK?
No. There's a longstanding Human Rights case over the issue. Would I suspect be easily resolved by allowing vote to those on short sentences and/or long termers being readied for release. However politicians of both stripes (take a bow Jack Straw) prefer populist posing to appeal to the Mail's readership.
|
I can see no reason why prisoners should not be allowed to vote; even the most terrible of offenders.
If the majority of our country are murderers, then what would be logic for not legalising murder?
|
|
No allowing prisoners to vote is surely disenfranchising them. Why bother to fit in to a community if you are not allowed to vote for the leaders of that community?
|
|
They have disenfranchised themselves.
|
Can you answer the question;
"What is prison supposed to accomplish?" ?
|
>> Fear of going back.
So that's working really well then......
NOT
|
Roger, I was really asking people who understood the issues.
I mean thanks for showing interest and all, but, well, you know.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Mon 14 Mar 16 at 20:12
|
>> Roger, I was really asking people who understood the issues.
>>
>> I mean thanks for showing interest and all, but, well, you know.
>>
Prison can only have 4 purposes.
1/ To Punish (revenge)
2/ To protect society from those incarcerated
3/ To Rehabilitate
4/ To Deter
You can perm any of them as you wish but
1/ Achieves nothing worthwhile
4/ Has a poor success rate
Leaves you with 2/ and 3/
The subject of this thread clearly is beyond 3/ so falls fairly and squarely under 2/
|
She's in early stages of what, by any standard, will be a long stretch. Never too soon to start rehabilitation but you're right about 2.
None of that though should deprive her of 'constitutional rights'.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 14 Mar 16 at 20:30
|
|
No. 1 will do. Especially if the other are not working..
|
>> You can perm any of them as you wish but
>>
>>
>> 1/ Achieves nothing worthwhile
>> 4/ Has a poor success rate
I'm quite happy with '1' being on the agenda. It's part of the set up and rightly so.
'2' works quite well
...and if you can achieve a '3' out of it as well, all well and good.
'4' is poor, but only because the sentences are so small and the places are like a holiday camp to some.
|
>>I'm quite happy with '1' being on the agenda.
Actually that's the one that bothers me. Its much the same as smacking a child through anger.
|
...[prisons] are like a holiday camp...
Full of 1970s entertainers?
(Not my joke but...well, y'know.)
|
Well actually deterrence is, as Roger states, one of the declared aims of the penal system. Whether it works or not is debatable but from these statistics you could make a good case for arguing that for sentences over 12 months it acts as a deterrent more often than not.
open.justice.gov.uk/reoffendingu/prisons/
|
>> Well actually deterrence is, as Roger states, one of the declared aims of the penal
>> system.
I can claim an "aim" for anything, but not actually put effort into it.
>>Whether it works or not is debatable but from these statistics you could make
>> a good case for arguing that for sentences over 12 months it acts as a
>> deterrent more often than not.
Clearly those number prove that prison does not deter, but simply as the sentence goes up they have less time outside jail to reoffend.
|
I was responding to the question "What is prison supposed to accomplish. As Roger and yourself have said it is supposed, amongst other things to deter.
I do not thing the comparatively low reoffending rate for sentences over 12 months can wholly be attributed to the fact that the offenders are out of circulation for a time. Clearly for some there is a strong deterrent element.
|
>> They have disenfranchised themselves.
>>
Those of us who have never been caught (Most of us have done something awful at one time or another) can only be thankful to be free.
|
>> Those of us who have never been caught (Most of us have done something awful
>> at one time or another) can only be thankful to be free.
I think I can say that most of us have done something illegal, less so "criminal", but "awful'? Thats going a bit far.
|
Sort of with you there Z. I've been known to drive a bit too fast from time to time but I'm certainly not aware of having done anything much more "awful" than that.
I'm delighted to affirm.
|
"He also complained that his coffee was served cold, he did not have enough butter for his bread, and he was not allowed moisturiser."
The lack of moisturiser should swing it. Clearly a cruel and unusual punishment.
|
Nivea supplenda est
But without it he might even get released sooner if he ends up looking too old and wrinkly to be kept in prison.
|
So I post a pertinent and pretty inoffensive, and fairly well known, poem, and it gets the AC treatment. Bit of a Mary Whitehouse over-reaction, there really. Aren't we all grown ups and can handle the odd censored expletive? That was Literature, that was.
Anyone wondering what it was can search for "Seven Ages Robert Conquest" for details. Warning: contains one naughty word.
|
Yeah she has rights and is entitled to basic human rights subject to the loss of liberty that she has been sentenced to.
But if she is cynically taking the pee she doesn't deserve to be humoured. She should have a lots of hoops to jump through before she starts running through legal aid and court time.
The question in my mind is whether any such offender can take the state through a very costly process at public expense regardless, or whether there are suitable gates along the way to establish the validity of the case. If she is entitled without question to take up resources paid for by us to take this all the way to ECHR for example, and it costs us £1m, I think that's wrong unless several judges along the way have agreed that there is a case to answer.
Charity begins at home, or at least closer to it.
I also wonder if anybody actually wants Dennehy to associate with them, and if prison management consider that she would either be a danger to others or likely to undermine their rehabilitation; if they wanted to put her in with me I'd consider that a breach of my human rights, I know that.
I'm pretty sure solitary confinement is not a breach per se. I hope the prison has done the paperwork properly.
|
I can't comment on the ins and outs of this case because we only have information from the media and they love a bit of "Old lags living like kings while pensioners starve" to get their readers frothing.
But I do believe that people who are imprisoned as punishment for their crimes should be treated with dignity and respect whist they are there, no matter what they have done. There is something of a horrible holier than thou attitude to prisoners, with a fair proportion of the population wanting their lives made as miserable and uncomfortable as possible while they are behind bars. Not only does this smack of playground bullying, let's get the ones who can't fight back, but making prisons violent and dehumanising places is not in any way conducive to reforming those inside, rather more likely to make them resentful and hateful towards society when they come out.
|
|
Top post R O'R. Thank you.
|
|
Spot on. Hope it makes the hangers and floggers pause and think.
|
>> But I do believe that people who are imprisoned as punishment for their crimes should
>> be treated with dignity and respect whist they are there, no matter what they have
>> done.
Yes, but many think it is retribution by the State. It shouldn't be of course!
I would imagine in a perfect world all prisoners would come out with a trade or qualification as well as lessons on how to behave in public which I guess would reduce recidivism, but the reality it costs lots of money which tax payers are not willing to cough up.
|
I wonder how much the prisoners actually want to vote when they bring this sort of legal action or its something to hang their hat on so to speak.
The actual issue isn't something that exercises me, more the motivation behind it.
|
>> But I do believe that people who are imprisoned as punishment for their crimes should
>> be treated with dignity and respect
Just don't expect unqualified support for that view from the many non-criminals who are not themselves treated with dignity and respect by society.
We would demean ourselves to put offenders in prison and mistreat them of course.
They should be given opportunities and education to improve themselves, and treated fairly and with the respect they deserve.
Respect for their rights, yes. Respect for the misanthropes who would cut your throat, given the chance, or who routinely express their displeasure by smearing their surroundings with their own excrement, might be harder to muster. You'd have to be a saint.
|
>> But if she is cynically taking the pee she doesn't deserve to be humoured.
I bet its very little to do with her at all and a whole lot to do with some lawyer or other pushing it forward.
|
So many things are a waste of time and money.I haven't got much time for killers peadophiles and people in general who want or are destroying our way of living.
But we got cctv everywhere less coppers on the beat or not enough of them.
Live can be tough and is sometimes for most of us.She knived three people.If she is mentally ill somebody should have picked this up if treatment was available.If she wasn't treated then we live in a scary world.Of course people in prison should be put on the right path.That isn't happening is it?
|
I do think that we have a section of society that we shouldn't bother with. How we discard them is difficult to know, but they are not wanted. Serious pedophiles, repeat rapists and murderers, etc. etc.
However, for the majority of people it is a fact that the re-offend less and rejoin society more if they are treated decently and helped to re-integrate with improved skills.
We should stop seeing revenge as essential, and start seeing the best solution as desirable.
|
>> I do think that we have a section of society that we shouldn't bother with.
>> How we discard them is difficult to know, but they are not wanted. Serious pedophiles,
>> repeat rapists and murderers, etc. etc.
>>
>> However, for the majority of people it is a fact that the re-offend less and
>> rejoin society more if they are treated decently and helped to re-integrate with improved skills.
Now I can agree with you.
|
Really? You started by backing Pat's assertion that because one individual had previously violated the human rights of others, she should be entitled to none of her own. I don't think that's what NoFM is suggesting; in fact he previously explained quite clearly why none of us has the right to take away another's rights. I think he's just saying that in a minority of cases rehabilitation is a lost cause, and the offenders in question just have to be managed humanely in the context of public safety.
Which leaves the question of rehabilitation, which you appear to say you agree with, but which is exactly the 'do-gooding' of which you accused Bromp and, by association, me yesterday. So which is it?
|
>> I think he's just saying that in a minority of cases rehabilitation is a lost cause
And there is little we can do except lock them away to keep everybody else safe. Still respecting their rights except the ones we have to take away - such as freedom.
|
>> Really?
Yes, really. Just because you don't see it or understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>> You started by backing Pat's assertion that because one individual had previously violated the
>> human rights of others,
Eh? You mean the triple murderer, don't you?
>> Which leaves the question of rehabilitation, which you appear to say you agree with,
Well, you appear to have got it wrong.
>> but
>> which is exactly the 'do-gooding' of which you accused Bromp and, by association, me yesterday.
>> So which is it?
I think, very strongly, that there are a few in society that are truly awful. More awful than many people can comprehend. I think those people should be despatched with, State executed, cheerio....(Anders Breivik, Robert Black, Joanna Dennehy, etc)
Down the scale a bit are the very unpleasant and exceptionally selfish. Now they need plenty off porridge... and by 'plenty' I mean decades and no 'half off'....(serial rapist, people prone to constant extreme violence, etc)
Keep going down the scale as is.
Then, when you get to the tit who had a bad upbringing and went off the rails as a youth, but with a bit of time and effort could be brought around... fair enough, spend some time effort and money on allowing him to become a decent citizen.
There's a sliding scale.
The trouble is, people like you think people like me want an extreme. I don't. What I want is for you and people like you to realise some are a lost cause and not to pander to them or give sympathy, they will only ever see it as a weakness and try to exploit it.
Those at the worst and medium end of the spectrum prey on the weak and helpless. They make people's live's an utter misery (if they haven't killed them in the extreme cases). I truly cannot fathom why the victim doesn't come more to the forefront, rather than the useless piece of crap sat in the cell, who can rot as far as i'm concerned.
So, to recap.... minor offenders, esp youthful ones, no problem.. try and help them to sort their lives out... the worst offenders IMO have lost any rights due.
Somewhere in the middle there'd need to be a discussion as to the way forward, but plenty of porridge first.
|
>>
>> >> But if she is cynically taking the pee she doesn't deserve to be humoured.
>>
>>
>> I bet its very little to do with her at all and a whole lot
>> to do with some lawyer or other pushing it forward.
Yup she is a just a cynically exploited vehicle for someone else
|
Is there a a bulk discount for soft left members of this forum when joining the Howard League For Penal Reform?
LOL :-)
|
I beg your pardon, Rog, but I'm an extremist lefty. (I must be because Mappy said so.) I do understand we must all look much the same from over on the fruitcake fringe.
Meanwhile, how's it going in Ukipland? Still manning the drawbridge against all those would-be Kippers from the BNP?
|
Not too bad thanks!
We, as a party, are involved in the Grassroots Out (GO) campaign which has support from across the political divide.
Street stalls have been successful, with people actually approaching and asking for information!
Locally, we have held one so far and next Saturday my wife and I will be helping out, to our limited physical abilities, at another in our local town.
|
Actually she won one point (conceded) about compliance with rules. But certainly failed on main Human Rights Grounds.
Judgement:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/dennehy-v-ministry-of-justice-1.pdf
Or short summary:
www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/dennehy-v-ministry-of-justice-summary.pdf
Judge makes point that ALL are entitled to protection of law.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 26 May 16 at 12:51
|
Another scandalous waste of time & money looming - Armel Coussine
