If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
People will always have differing opinions, its part of a healthy democracy.
But just because one persons opinion isn’t the same as yours doesn’t make theirs wrong. There is no point in screaming facts and figures, or saying others have no idea.
We are all capable of forming our own opinion, whether you agree or not.
:thumb:
That suprises me; you being such an advocate of human rights for everyone.
:thumb:
I didn't say otherwise. However, to form an opinion on what prisons are "like", based on seeing a TV programme is rather silly, yes? If she'd quoted from websites like The Prison Reform Trust, St Giles Trust, even from a government site, that would be more informed, yes?
This isn't a serious comment, I take it?
http://www.sentdown.co.uk/NEW_sentdown/index.php
is a useful guide to what prison is like
And, to be honest man, you do look like the cock here. Do try to engage in debate, which to be honest you've shown yourself more than capable of. People's opinions don't change because someone redirects their anger and vents off at them, they change because someone can provide a valid alternative viewpoint.
You do realise that when you post like this you actually strengthen the opposite views of the people you debate with, don't you Blag?
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/chapters/the-rights-of-prisoners/basic-rights-of-prisoners/basic-rights-of-prisoners.shtml
The legal result here was because it was agreed that by withholding legally available medication that the prisoners were already on to deal with addictions (remember this settlement is not with all prisoners who were on Heroin) - the prison service caused physical harm to the prisoners, which was judged to be assualt. It's a very specific situation, the removal of legal drugs from someone who was already on a treatment program at the time of going to jail.
To me, there is a big difference between the prison service saying we refuse to instigate methodone, or other withdrawal reducing treatments, for heroin addicted prisoners and them removing treatment from someone already recieving it.
Let alone, as people I'm sure are aware, there's no lack of drugs in jail - taking someone of a treatment program and pushing them into the hands of jail dealers smacks of either ignorance and the situation in the jail or a level of institutional collusion with those dealers that I don't like to think about.
But to finish off back on the topic of human rights - here's the full text of the European Convention on Human Rights -
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#Convention
You'll see that article 4 and 5 provide clear disctinctions between the rights of prisoners lawfully detained and people who are free.
You'll also see that for nearly every article, for example 10 and 11, the second point ensentially allows the law to restrict freedoms when it chooses.
Article 16 is particularly pleasant - and would contridict the assumption that the rights are granted to people because they are human, they are in fact granted to people as citizens. People who are not citizens in Europe aren't covered by the right to free assembly, free speech, or freedom from discrimination when the government wishes to resrict their political activities.
So, another example of the fact that human rights aren't set in law as absolutes, but rather rights that in certain circumstances can be removed.
(shit, that went a bit seeker there :shocking: )
Saying all that though, this case was definately the right decision in my eyes.
i never said thats what prisons are like, i just said thats what they shouldnt be like
geez, and you say i look like a cock, at least i dont put words into other people`s mouths
at no point have i said EVERY prison lets its inmates have a game console, nt have i said EVERY prision is cusshy, i just said NO prision should be like the one i SAW on tv
whats so hard to get?
seeing a prisoner with a playstation with my own eyes, indicates FACT to me
I'm a little confused. When you go into prison, inherantly certain rights you would have outside are removed. However, rights like the right to vote are also removed. Surely the idea of imprisonment is to protect the law-abiding members of the public, so why is the right to vote removed?
More on topic, surely the best method of someone getting clean should be the treatment a prisoner recieves? A doctor should decide cold turkey / methadone / whatever and then that should be the treatement carried out?
Also, i'm sure there's an argument that active prisoner participation would allow prisons to become more effective rehabilition centres.
I understand that it's part of the awarded punishment. I'm just not so sure that removing the right to vote achieves anything. If you're part of the system, then you surely you should have a say in the system?
It's not something i've really thought about before. It just strikes me as punishment for punishments sake.
Think about what you're writing - you said "i`m not saying ALL prisons are like that".
You've just said it again - " i just said NO prision should be like the one i SAW on tv". The point I'm making (in my clumsy and heavyhanded way) is that you cannot draw any conclusions as to what prison is "like" on the basis that some prisoners get playstations. It tells you nothing about what the routine is like, how the screws treat the prisoners, how long they're locked up for, the educational opportunities, any work they have to do etc. You haven't even said if they were remand prisoners or not (inmates on remand have many more rights, due to the fact they haven't actually been found guilty of anything yet).
Do you see what I'm getting at? You're making judgements ("i just said NO prision should be like the one i SAW on tv") based on very little information. That's what I'm taking issue with.
As to losing the right to vote - I'd imagine it was done for the same reason it was in the US, it stops the creation of a massive population of anti-government voters in rural areas where prisons may be. So it's based on politics
Were they a remand prisoner? Or had they been convcited? Did they get to keep the Playstation in their cell? Or was it only to be used in a common room at certain times of the day? What was the rest of their day like? Did they do any work in a prison workshop? Were they doing any educational courses? Attending any groups? Engaging with a prison psychologist or a CARAT worker? etc
See my point?
I hope you're telling Littleali the same thing then.
Remand prisoners don't lose the right to vote.
If the prisoner is already on a script before they go to prison, that script should be continued.
Yes, I just seen that. Fairynuff.
I'm assuming the programme is 'Lock them up or let them out' which despite the stupid title is quiet a good programme. Its concentrates on prisoners up for parole, so so far the people they have shown have tended to be good (albeit perhaps not model prisoners). I'm not sure it was cushy, but their cells certainly looked rather nice, with various mod cons. Now I expect all prisons are not like that, but LittleAli's argument seems to be that no prisons should be like that.
I almost treat remand prisoners as not being convicted prisoners. As far as I'm concerned they should be given as much freedom as possible, within the constraints of security.
Personally I also think there is an argument for allowing prisoners who are up for parole, or convicted of non-violent offences greater freedom, such as day release.
Against that I'd give many people convicted of violent offences tough sentences. Virtually no-one who commits murder should be out in less than twenty-five years and assault which has left some disabled (either mentally or physically) should be treated the same as murder.