The BBC news website is today reporting on calls from children's charity Barnardo's to set up satellite monitoring of sex offenders accompanied with lie detector testing.
Why, if these kind of expensive and time consuming methods are required to prevent these people, know for the high rate of reoffending, from harming another child are they allowed to freely walk the streets?
In another example of 'world gone mad' and perhaps another example of 'liberal gone mad' (referring me to) the Home Office yesterday settled out of court on a compensation case brought by three drug addicted prisoners who claimed going cold turkey in prison was a breach of their human rights. I have to admit, I am tending to side with those who believe this is madness. Should criminals be allowed any more than the most basic human rights while in prison? Should our prison service be paying for them to continue taking drugs. Is it a breach of human rights to force prisoners to go through cold turkey withdrawal from drugs if they have committed a crime to put themselves in that situation in the first place?
Should prisoners, people who have broken the law, be given better treatment than law abiding people who are addicted to drugs and cannot get help to combat their addiction on the NHS because there are not enough funds available?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
Clarification:
I can see and agree with the need for appropriate and effective health care, for everyone including prisoners - however surely this is a point for policy change rather than seeking compensation.
Is compensation just an empty gesture - will we see change?
Should the right to compensation extend to victims of crime? Is commiting a crime against a person breaching their human rights? If it is - who makes payment of compensation?
This is a thorny issue - I'd love to read your thoughts.
Well, withdrawal from heavy drugs is akin to torture.
But more importantly, we can never know that our laws, as a whole, are just. We both know the big list of things that were illegal a hundred years ago that shouldn't have been illegal. (Illegal or not, someone would have surely gone to jail for subtext not too long ago.)
So if there's more than what you call a 'most basic set of human rights' for prisoners--say, 'human rights for prisoners'--maybe we're a better society overall?
You're right Brad - I would normally be 100% on the side of making sure prisoners were treated with upmost dignity, and I would defend their right to health care etc, but for some reason, I can't quite put my finger on, this doesn't seem to be the best way forward to me.
I can't think of a 'more just' answer, I can't even really put my finger on why I find this difficult, in a case like this I guess treating everyone as best we can should always be the right answer.
I hear ya.
Perhaps I'm just terrified of going to jail and being denied my drugs!
Post a Comment