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.
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
If its self defence it shouldn't be assault.
And whilst I think we should have tougher sentences I think it remains right that the Judge can set a lower recommended jail sentence in extreme cases. I just think that the starting point when looking at the recommended time in prison should be set higher (if I remember for most murders its only fifteen years, though twenty five for multiple, sexual or murder of police).
I don't know. The official reasoning given by the Lord Chancellor is that:
"We've always taken the view in this country - for a very, very long time - that if you are sent to prison, as a convicted prisoner, not one on remand, you lose - during the time that you're in prison - the right to vote."
I think it is fair that somebody in jail who has broken the law loses the right to have a say in society through voting. But, I think that right should be restored when somebody is released from prison - and that is presently the case in Britain.
The US goes much further than Britain and the situation there is imo very unfair. In a lot of US states those convicted of a felony are permanently disenfranchised.
Two very different views on it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110006382
And this one was interesting too.
Although interestingly whilst it perhaps seems an issue which neatly divides along Democrat/Republican party lines I've read of people on the Christian Right and Southern conservative Christians calling for voting rights to be restored to ex-felons as well. Although, given that enfranchising felons would probably benefit the Democrats change is more likely to come from them; now they've got Congress something might happen.
Sorry for going off-topic...but it's related to prisoner rights..
But isn't what punishment people should get relevant? After all it could be argued (not by me) that cold turkey without help is a fitting punishment. And it certainly seems relevant when talking about whether prisoners should be given methadone that we discuss that in the wider context of what sentences they should recieve and what their rights should be while in jail.
My point is that not all situations are the same. For example -
Person A commits GBH on person B, because person B sexually assaulted person A's sister.
Person C commits GBH on person D because person D is a different skin colour to person C.
Should person A and person C get the same sentence?
No, but I'm not saying it should.
I'm saying that the base from which judges work when deciding sentences should be higher. That doesn't mean that everyone automatically gets tougher sentences, but it does mean that people such as person C should do.
It's revelant in that context, but there's no limit on the number of discussions possible and debating the wider issues of the punishment system in the UK deserves its own thread, rather than diluting other debates
How can something be prescribed and illegal?
And there has to be a line in the sand somewhere doesn't there?
You presumably don't think guards should be allowed to rape and murder prisoners whenever they feel like it? So this case is about establishing where the line is drawn - which to be honest only comes through people making legal complaints.
And it's worth bearing in mind everyone has the right to sue everyone for everything - what matters is what courts and judges agree with or reject.
So why not allow a few punishment beatings then? They are criminals after all and they deserve everything they get.
This case, despite what the tabloids might want you to believe, isnt about prisoners wanting to be supplied with loads of drugs so they can get really high while inside. Its about people not getting the medical treatment they deserve.
So long as the prisoners are fed and under obsevation is there any reason why we can't just let them go cold turkey in jail.
This of course depends on the prison's ability to keep drugs outside.
Because if you actually help them off drugs properly the chances of them returning to it are reduced.
The sharp lesson of 'cold turkey' doesnt make it less likely they will shoot up later.
But if we don't like this concept, I guess we might as well stop using anesthetic when doing surgery or dental work on prisoners as well. Think of the money it'll save us!
having not read the entire thread.
no its not a human right abuse.
nearly everything nowerdays violates someones human rights in the wider sense of the word.
we've gone to an extreme in this country of what human rights means.
nowhere is there a law to say: you can eat turkey, although there are many laws to say you cannot be tortured for example. and comparing the 2 side by side as violations of human rights is a seriously pathetic joke!
Withholding prescribed medication is not a human rights abuse?
Examples?
Examples?
Ahhhh, a comedian. How droll.