Turn on thread page Beta

B270 - Prisoner's Rights Withdrawal Bill watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Billinge1991)
    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?]
    Thanks for that - I'll respond tomorrow - I have a morning exam tomorrow so until then I'll leave this.

    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    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.
    Billinge's above post is some analysis, that is what I am talking about - at least a reason to propose this bill. It's not a pendaticism or a technicality, but a reason the vote for the bill. Else I will continue to assume that the Conservatives can't even think of a reason to vote for their bills.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Smack)
    Aww didums.
    I'm simply saying that the HRA doesn't make them less of a punishment. Not that I think thats a reason someone should be sent to jail for anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    This isn't an argument. It just begs the question of why committing a crime means your rights should be taken away.
    Because society has given you these civil liberties in order for you to live your life. If you however violate the rules society then imposes, you are therefore trying to act outside of societies borders, therefore you lose the rights that society gives you.

    Comprendeh senor?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    This isn't an argument. It just begs the question of why committing a crime means your rights should be taken away.
    Because you've demonstrated that you lack the responsibility to cope with them?

    There is too much emphesis on rights in this country (in the wrong places) and not enough on responsibilities in my opinion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    Aww didums.
    I knew a guy like you once, he got bullied a lot.

    Go here - http://www.childline.org.uk/Pages/Home.aspx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Thanks for that - I'll respond tomorrow - I have a morning exam tomorrow so until then I'll leave this.


    Billinge's above post is some analysis, that is what I am talking about - at least a reason to propose this bill. It's not a pendaticism or a technicality, but a reason the vote for the bill. Else I will continue to assume that the Conservatives can't even think of a reason to vote for their bills.
    Thank you for the confidence :P:

    Good luck in your morning exam, hope it goes well for you - I'm travelling back to uni tomorrow for an exam Friday *grumble*

    And hey! We do have reasons...but if we told you then your very brain would explode from the genius within! (Blagged that )
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    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.
    They are let out when they are thought not to be a danger any more. Or at least thats the idea. Re offending rates are high because of what happens after release.

    If the state was acting within reason it wouldn't be subject to lawsuits as it would not be breaking their human rights.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    So if someone broke into my house it could tie them up and do whatever i want to them? :teeth:
    Have a 'thing' for heroin-addicts do we?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    Thanks for that - I'll respond tomorrow - I have a morning exam tomorrow so until then I'll leave this.


    Billinge's above post is some analysis, that is what I am talking about - at least a reason to propose this bill. It's not a pendaticism or a technicality, but a reason the vote for the bill. Else I will continue to assume that the Conservatives can't even think of a reason to vote for their bills.
    Aye, and it's a post made in response to someone asking "why?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ocassus)
    Because society has given you these civil liberties in order for you to live your life. If you however violate the rules society then imposes, you are therefore trying to act outside of societies borders, therefore you lose the rights that society gives you.
    Funny, this sounds just like arguments people used to justify the persecution of different religions, different skin colours, different mother tongues, different sexuality. The point of fundamental human rights is that they transcend those normatives.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnum Opus)
    Prisoners are human, they are entitled to the same rights as any other human.

    Prisoner A rapes, tortures and murders 2 of your daughters/best friends or your wife.

    Cool on the matter still?


    No ifs, no buts, Do you still think the same knowing how the guy treated these women and how he snuffed them out of existence?

    or maybe the countless child molesters, rapists and murderers?



    I bet you say "not all prisoners are rapists", well i guess you want these fine examples of human nature to be free like in lala land too?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by The Referee)
    So how would you propse tightening up the current victim insulting mess without using the proposed bill?
    I would look at making sure prisons ad hear to the HRA. I would also do several things to reduce re-offending, but if you want to look at them you can hunt out the bill I wrote on prison reform some time ago.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by HARRY PUTAH)
    Prisoner A rapes, tortures and murders 2 of your daughters/best friends or your wife.

    Cool on the matter still?


    No ifs, no buts, Do you still think the same knowing how the guy treated these women and how he snuffed them out of existence?

    or maybe the countless child molesters, rapists and murderers?



    I bet you say "not all prisoners are rapists", well i guess you want these fine examples of human nature to be free like in lala land too?
    Yes, they are still human.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    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.
    Where their human rights have been broken it is the fault of the person who broke those rights, in this case often the state, not on the law that gives them those rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HARRY PUTAH)
    Prisoner A rapes, tortures and murders 2 of your daughters/best friends or your wife.

    Cool on the matter still?


    No ifs, no buts, Do you still think the same knowing how the guy treated these women and how he snuffed them out of existence?

    or maybe the countless child molesters, rapists and murderers?



    I bet you say "not all prisoners are rapists", well i guess you want these fine examples of human nature to be free like in lala land too?
    While I agree with the sentiment...

    No, I just agree. If someone touched my daughter I'd hang them by their testes from the ceiling 8ft from the ground.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HARRY PUTAH)
    Prisoner A rapes, tortures and murders 2 of your daughters/best friends or your wife.

    Cool on the matter still?


    No ifs, no buts, Do you still think the same knowing how the guy treated these women and how he snuffed them out of existence?

    or maybe the countless child molesters, rapists and murderers?



    I bet you say "not all prisoners are rapists", well i guess you want these fine examples of human nature to be free like in lala land too?
    I'll quote myself on this one, posted in our sub forum in regards to punishment.
    See this is where I've kind of been won over through arguments with the left. I don't believe that a person should be jailed any longer than needed to be returned to society safely. The problem with that though is that judging when a person is safe or not is hard, with that guy in the news just now being a prime example.

    I also don't think someone should be imprisoned for revenge - to satisfy the victim's desire for it. That's retributive justice, which is an uncivilized, first testament practice. What's done is done, and whether the victim likes it or not, is dead or alive, mutiliated or otherwise, revenge is petty, unbecoming of an honourable person and lowers the victim to the level of the criminal.
    There is a need for a two pronged approach - compensation for the victim - financially, support, counselling, whatever it takes to help the victim recover to their position before the crime, and compensation for the difference between before and after.
    And rehabilitation, punishment as a deterrent and monitoring of the criminal.
    This bill doesn't give someone any more "revenge", and it's not intended to. It's merely about protecting the public from having their money spent compensating criminals for being prisoners.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    I'm simply saying that the HRA doesn't make them less of a punishment. Not that I think thats a reason someone should be sent to jail for anyway.
    Some prisoners have it better than a lot of hard working law abiding students I know. That is a disgrace. Prisons should be tough, they should be brutal; they should not be palaces and they should not have better entertainment than a lot of student flats.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    It's merely about protecting the public from having their money spent compensating criminals for being prisoners.
    That has **** all to do with human rights then. You don't suspend human rights on that basis. You leave it up to the judgement of the criminal justice system to decide.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertgio)
    This bill doesn't give someone any more "revenge", and it's not intended to. It's merely about protecting the public from having their money spent compensating criminals for being prisoners.
    Merely being imprisoned in grounds for compensation?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Smack)
    Some prisoners have it better than a lot of hard working law abiding students I know. That is a disgrace. Prisons should be tough, they should be brutal; they should not be palaces and they should not have better entertainment than a lot of student flats.
    It annoys me when people say they are so easy. They are not. It's as simple as that. That really isn't the point imo though. Imo they are not there to be punished, they are there to protect the public and to be rehabilitated.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.