B270 - Prisoner's Rights Withdrawal Bill Watch

This discussion is closed.
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#41
Report 8 years ago
#41
(Original post by Indievertigo)
Does it though? If it were that simple we'd have just proposed whipping prisoners so they don't want to be put back inside. (which btw is definitely not on the cards, just in case anyone starts to wonder :lol:)

Most of the responses so far suggest that human rights are protected solely by the Human rights act - if so, surely beatings, degradation, humiliation and such would have happened pre 1998?
Then why introduce this? If you think it will make no change?
0
elli_emc
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 8 years ago
#42
I'd say that amendment to tighten up rules at most.
I don't think that forcing addicts to go cold turkey can ever be right.
Neither do I wish to see public money frittered away.

In these cases, however, the courts must have seen a reason to compensate.
It's not as if every claim gets compensated.
The 1998 Act is open to interpretation by the judiciary.
0
chiggy321
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
(Original post by DayneD89)
Well (unlike you it seems) I believe that people can be rehabilitated. I introduced a bill some time ago that I think would have reduced those reoffending rates. I think that rehabilitation is needed, not simply taking away rights for what seems like no reason.
There needs to be a degree of both, unfortunately the ill thought out act that this Bill opposes does not allow the scope for any punishment at all.
0
simontinsley
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
(Original post by Indievertigo)
Please get yourself away from this ridiculous notion that all bills need to have analysis and argument with them. It's pedantic and I'm not entirely sure where you got it into your head that bills need to have that accompany them.
To ask people to vote for a bill without putting any reason with it hardly seems sensible does it? I'm not saying they have to, just that it's hardly top drawer stuff. You seem very arsey over the fact that someone has pointed out your party's bills have been thusfar, poor.

It is especially so when most of the responses to the thread have either been no, or why? It hardly stimulates good discussion or contributes to a good bill if there's no argument with it.
0
Smack
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 8 years ago
#45
:yy: from me.
0
The Referee
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#46
Report 8 years ago
#46
(Original post by elli_emc)
I'm curious to know exactly what the logic behind this Bill is - what would change in terms of prisoners' rights that a party would risk such a nauseating Bill name, when actually it doesn't seem to be such a radical move.
The logic behind this bill is to bring an end to the nauseating levels of compensation that have been handed out to prisioners/ex prisoners. Prisoners should not be using hte HRA to whinge about televison access or the long list of other things that this act has been abused to gain. The preamble makes it clear that torture/beatings etc will remain prohibited by national law. We seek only to redress the balance in the criminal justice system...currently the criminal seems to have more rights than their victim.
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#47
Report 8 years ago
#47
(Original post by chiggy321)
There needs to be a degree of both, unfortunately the ill thought out act that this Bill opposes does not allow the scope for any punishment at all.
Of course it does. Being locked up is one hell of a punishment. Ever been inside a prison? They are depressing and scary places. Maybe I do take my belief in rehabilitation over punishment too far, but this is much to far the other way.
0
paperclip
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
So if someone broke into my house it could tie them up and do whatever i want to them? :teeth:
0
DayneD89
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 8 years ago
#49
(Original post by paperclip)
So if someone broke into my house it could tie them up and do whatever i want to them? :teeth:
They wouldn't be a prisoner then
0
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
(Original post by Adorno)
Probably the same place he got the idea that there's a convention to provide full costings to each and every bill? In any case, it would, in this case, be helpful to identify which areas of the Human Rights Act that you feel you have a problem with. Do you also have a problem with the Universal Declaration on Human Rights to which we are signatories?
Aye probably, not sure where that is though.

Primarily section 8 that bothers us, dealing with the compensation - although it also deals with remedies, to which we're not opposed.
As Mrgd points out we're still bound by the ECHR, and no I'm not opposed to the Universal Declaration, although I say that as one who's not actually read it. If it suggests prisoners are entitled to financial compensation for their rights being withdrawn, then I'm opposed to that part aye.
0
jammythedodger
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#51
Report 8 years ago
#51
(Original post by DayneD89)
Well (unlike you it seems) I believe that people can be rehabilitated. I introduced a bill some time ago that I think would have reduced those reoffending rates. I think that rehabilitation is needed, not simply taking away rights for what seems like no reason.
Oh, I do. But until reoffending rates are zero no one can honestly tell me that we keep people in prison just to protect the public. We do it because it is just, that these people are punished for the crimes they commit against others. Its not just about 'help these people', they have caused pain and misery and they do have a debt to pay.

Now while theyre paying this debt, and while our government has a limited budget, Im not happy for taxpayers money to be wasted trying to worrying about particuarly points of these peisoners 'rights'. As ABC said, they will be treated humanely just as they were before 1998, and we'll get along fine. But the last thign we need is another legal framework for criminals to sue the state for acting within reason.
0
Smack
  • TSR Support Team
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
(Original post by DayneD89)
They are depressing and scary places.
Aww didums.
0
Billinge1991
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#53
Report 8 years ago
#53
(Original post by simontinsley)
To ask people to vote for a bill without putting any reason with it hardly seems sensible does it? I'm not saying they have to, just that it's hardly top drawer stuff. You seem very arsey over the fact that someone has pointed out your party's bills have been thusfar, poor.

It is especially so when most of the responses to the thread have either been no, or why? It hardly stimulates good discussion or contributes to a good bill if there's no argument with it.
The point of the bill is basically to stop prisoner's claiming compensation for poor treatment while in prision; which is becoming a huge (and strange ) cost to the prison services:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4996246.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...treatment.html
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/3944...ation_payouts/ ...to put down a few.

The removing of these rights will not condone poor treatment, but will prevent monetary gain by prisoners.

[More than this, prisoners seem to have more rights than people under the mental health act? Is this logical?]
0
The Referee
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
(Original post by DayneD89)
Of course it does. Being locked up is one hell of a punishment. Ever been inside a prison? They are depressing and scary places. Maybe I do take my belief in rehabilitation over punishment too far, but this is much to far the other way.
So how would you propse tightening up the current victim insulting mess without using the proposed bill?
0
Ocassus
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
YOu forfeit your human rights when you are convicted of a crime. End of story.
0
Adorno
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by Indievertigo)
As Mrgd points out we're still bound by the ECHR
I doubt that is in fact true. The 1998 HRA specifically incorporated the ECHR into British law so whilst we were the first nation to sign the convention it doesn't actually offer any legal protection.
0
Billinge1991
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by paperclip)
So if someone broke into my house it could tie them up and do whatever i want to them? :teeth:
They wouldn't be a prisoner, but it would be entrappment I think :p: but you could do whatever you wanted...and get punished? You never asked if you wouldn't be punished!
0
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report 8 years ago
#58
(Original post by simontinsley)
To ask people to vote for a bill without putting any reason with it hardly seems sensible does it? I'm not saying they have to, just that it's hardly top drawer stuff. You seem very arsey over the fact that someone has pointed out your party's bills have been thusfar, poor.

It is especially so when most of the responses to the thread have either been no, or why? It hardly stimulates good discussion or contributes to a good bill if there's no argument with it.
The "why" part of a bill is where a lot of debate is to be had. if debating pendaticisms and technicalities is what excites you, then that's your problem not everyone elses. Stop bringing it up, and I'll be less hostile towards you.
0
Gremlins
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#59
Report 8 years ago
#59
(Original post by Ocassus)
Prisoners forfeit their right to human rights by committing crimes against the rest of humanity. Until they are ready to be part of the civilised world again, they are stripped of their human rights as much as necessary and reissued with a bill of 'prisoners rights'. Which entitles them to much less than full human rights.
This isn't an argument. It just begs the question of why committing a crime means your rights should be taken away.
0
Indievertigo
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#60
Report 8 years ago
#60
(Original post by DayneD89)
Of course it does. Being locked up is one hell of a punishment. Ever been inside a prison? They are depressing and scary places. Maybe I do take my belief in rehabilitation over punishment too far, but this is much to far the other way.
But it doesn't change anything regarding the treatment inside a prison - things won't suddenly go from what they are just now to being barren concrete cells and wooden planks.

Like I said, the primary purpose of the bill is to remove the right to compensation for prisoners, when their human rights are said to have been contravened. In situations where they're assaulted inside, or abused, or have an accident they'll still be entitled to compensation under other laws. They'll still be protected by all the laws that protected them before 1998.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

The new Gillette ad. Is it:

Man-hating bullsh*t (140)
46.51%
Pro-humanity (161)
53.49%

Watched Threads

View All