Who'll be next?

.

Not as appalling as your spelling

 

LoL

 

fox

Quote

"Hi Mick, Dartmoor AFAIK has never been a Mliltary Prison although I cannot diagree with Military Prisons in the UK being more effective at curbing drug usage, sadly I recall that re-offending rates are higher for military prisons than civil prisons so the brutal regime may control drug availability, but it has not been shown to actually reduce re-offending -- which is after all what prisons are there for

Fox

I do not have any figures to hand but I was under the impression that the re-offending rates in UK military prisions was all but neglible. Civillian re-offending rates are relatively high.

Inmates in military prisions have hardly any human rights and in my view this should be extended to all prisions, most certainly for re-offenders.

Just scowling at a warden should merit a severe duffing up. In other words it should be a hell on earth and fear of returning should be so great that all the ex cons start behaving themselves.

Possibly compulsory drugging of prisioners should be considered if they mis behave, so that they walk around half doped.

The problem can be cured, you just need to start reversing the softly softly trend.

Regards

Mick

 

Doping criminals

fox

Sorry, I never made myself clear.

I would dope criminals who cause trouble in prision. They would only be capable of slobbing around and would just end up as little puppies doing as they are told.

Big question is would they want to go back to another session of being a zombie......I doubt it, so they would probably behave. Just a theory but surely worth trying.

Regards

Mick

 

Perpetrators of 'intergrated' and 'appauling' should be doing hard labour....

The most fundamental human right is self-autonomy. It's absurd for the state to try and control peoples bodies. All drugs should be legal. But the distributors and suppliers should be liable for any unfortunate consequences to others and for the safety of their products, that bit would require no legal changes.

Paul

 

I quite agree.

With that in mind I've moved it to the chat forum.

My views on the themes here differ markedly from what would appear to be the majority of posters on this thread with the exception of fox and garyi. I deliberately avoid this kind of "political" (stretching the definition of the word) debate on forums like this because I inevitably end up extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the almost non-existent humanitarian spirit shown by most of the members. This thread is no exception.

The utterly selfish and barbarian views of some people here beggars belief really

Michael.

 

Michael,

I agree. My work involves conveying drug addicts from time to time. They are all good payers as it happens.

As regards promoting good behaviour amongst citizens, we law-abiding citizens should lead by example by not promoting state-sponsored inhumanity.

Soft drugs should be decriminalised so as to create a chasm between their availablity and that of hard drugs; if an individual could obtain relatively harmless drugs without having to go through a criminal who wants to sell them something more addictive and therefore more lucrative, the use of hard drugs would surely decrease.

Peddlers of hard drugs should be given longer sentences for sure.

 

Thinking of the victims

Michael

There is nothing distasteful in hitting criminals hard if it helps reduce the level of crime. I have great concern for inocent members of the public who lives are ruined or are made unpleasant by the actions of criminals.

I have no sympathy with the criminal what so ever. My main concern is to ensure that they never re offend again, and if it means getting tough, with them, then so be it.

The UK has the highest re offending level in Europe and we need to ask the question why.

Regards

Mick

 

Having read through this thread, I cannot improve on this sentence of Michael's. The lynch mob mentality is simplistic in the extreme. It's a bit like terrorism; if a state has to descend to the same level as the terrorists, it has already lost. The same with crime/drugs, etc. - if we abandon our humanity, our ability to reach out to people less fortunate than ourselves, to try to help people, regardless of whether it succeeds or not, we are truly lost. The sort of system that some contributors are suggesting has been tried before; it started in Germany in 1933 and it was tough on crime - all sorts of "crime", such as merely being different. If we do what some contributors suggest, we take the first step down that road.

I belong to a religion whose Master advocated turning the other cheek. This seems hopelessly naïve these days, and it is - hopelessly, wonderfully naïve. But it is a reflection of the belief that nobody is beyond redemption and that nobody should be discarded. When we start discarding people as being worthy only of a hole in the head, we discard our humanity. OK, it costs us money, but how big a price do you put on humanity? Again, the Master summed it up perfectly:

"Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"

Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times" (Matt.18:21-22)

 

Tone

I think a few days working along with the police may change your viewpoint.

It is so very easy to sit in your nice protected middle class house and pontificate forgiveness and humanity. No doubt you feel very pleased with yourself in turning out to be such a compassionate and caring human being.

However try saying that to parents whose children are being approached by drug dealers or someone who was beat up one evening just because some yob fancied a bit of fun.

You turn the cheek to the criminal but you allow him to hit someone else. That is an affront to civilisation.

Regards

Mick

 

Re: Tone

It's just as easy to sit in your nice middle class house and pontificate the unthinking hang em and flog em nonsense you come out with, Mick.

This thread is supremely depressing. Some of the people here are utterly clueless about the real world, ITSM.

-- Ian

 

Its hard to find sympathy for junkies (hard drug users not soft) when ive seen my girlfriend who is a nurse come home bruised and scared because a user decided he wanted to smack the nurse who was trying to help.
Another nurse that my gf knew was attacked in the hospital grounds by a teenager who was breaking into cars to steal for drug funding (was off his head when caught) he wrapped an iron bar across the nurses head. She no longer works and suffers brain damage from the attack, ruining her familly life.
Or theres the junkie who broke into my garage and pinched my tools to fund his habbit.
The time when me and a friend were beaten up for our money (of wich we had none on us), and not so long ago a disabled teenager in a wheelchair was beaten for his mobile and left lieing on the pavement.

Incidents likle these help to fuel the idea's of inflicting painful punishment on the perpetrators

 

Ian

Penance has just introduced you to the real world.

Regards

Mick

 

I appreciate that we need a better justice system to deal with such crimes and attacks, after all our system seems to have a habbit of finding the wrong people guilty.
But when they are caught red handed i think justice should be served in a hard hitting manner.
My idea for the guy who attacked a nurse with an iron bar, let her fammily do as they want to him, then refuse him any treatment as he assaults those that are there to help.

 

Don't be so bloody patronising Mick. I know the real world far better than you do in your cosseted existence.

Tell me, for example, what experience do you have of what it's actually like in prison? Any at all? I thought not.

-- Ian

 

IMHO every case should be looked at on its own merits.

Not every heroine addict beats up old people and robs to fund the habit. Some heroine addicts could be your next door neighbour who appears to be a very respectable individual with good job. I have met heroine addicts, one of which was an addict for 5 years. Her family and friends never new, she didnt have an arm full of needle marks and she certainly never robbed to feed her habit. She was pretty, inteligent and harmless but nonetheless addicted. Do you suggest we shoot her, stick her in dartmoor to do hard labour, beat her?

I have also met a heroine addict who was so overpowered by the stuff that he had ruined every injection point possible and was injecting into his toe and his penis.

Some of the opinions in this thread are quite frightening. I can understand the strong viewpoints and some peoples experience of addicts/drugs are harsh. But to turn on each other with such malice when all we are doing is discussing is quite sad. This whole thread has got completely out of hand and should be deleted.

While i am all for free speech some of the narrow minded views on this thread only discredtit the people that made them, and i find it hard to believe that a group of relatively intellectual people, who are passionate about a common interest ( hi Fi ) have allowed themselves to sink to such levels and turn on oneanother.

Lets get back to what we know and love and leave the addicts/junkies/smackheads/alcoholics etc etc blah blah blah to their own fate, proffesionals who can help, people that believe in them and hopefully a good life where they are able to recover and live a happy existence and listen to hifi.

Greg

 

Ian

If I came across as patronising then I apologise.

The point I am making is that we have been putting the needs of the criminal before the needs of the victim for far too long and it as reached an unacceptable degree.

The reality is that most of us know right from wrong but a few don't. Treat them leniantly in the early stages, but when someone hits a nurse, then she needs protecting. The criminal has now lost any right to sympathy.

The perpretrator of that act should be sent down for several years.

Regards

Mick

 

Re: Tone

Aha, Mick, as one stroppy old git to another, I don't think it would change me. "Parents whose chîldren are being approached by drug dealers"? Isn't that everywhere? I know my girls could get stuff if they wanted - it's everywhere. Thankfully, they didn't want.

Moreover, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. The general tenor of your post gives me the impression that this is because you want to miss it, and would prefer to erect straw men to knock over. If that's what you want, that's fine by me, but it doesn't actually get anyone anywhere.

I'm all for catching criminals and punishing them, but not for the sort of "hang 'em high" mentality evidenced by some contributors. For example, we have a drug problem because, rightly or wrongly, there is a demand for drugs. If there were no demand, there'd be no problem. Removing the demand is one of education, not of draconian punishment. It requires patient work, not a quick fix. Quick fixes never work.

I try to be a compassionate and caring human being. It doesn't always work, but if I don't clear the wall, at least I hopefully make marks higher up it. I have no illusions about my infallibility, which is why I feel for my fellow and equally fallible humans caught in much worse circumstances. None of us is a saint, and a change of circumstances could have put us in the same boat as some of the people you're now so eager to lynch. Criminal behaviour is learned behaviour, not genetically programmed in. In really hard cases, "turning the other cheek" may not work, but it's still something one needs to try. AS Tevye the milkman said in "Fiddler on the roof", an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the whole world ends up blind and toothless.

 

Re: Ian

This is absolutely right; obviously, cases SHOULD be taken on an individual basis, but something's wrong when, for example, Tony Martin's lovely friends (especially Brendan Fearon (sp??) can do over 100 jobs and not be prevented from doing more.

It's like rapists and paedophiles - they get far too much attention and yet their victims have life sentences of their own to deal with.

I mean, it's REALLY screwed up when someone like Fearon can claim legal aid due to "loss of earnings" when the scummy tosspiece wasn't "working" anyway. And on our tax tab too.

I'm not letting Tony Martin off the hook here either - he shouldn't have shot them; but then again, if the police had done their job properly (ha ha ha ha ha ha) he'd have been protected from having his place violated 5 times in a row. Personally I think it's a real shame he didn't get them both; a nice shallow grave and a big saving for the tax payer - what a win win situation. I doubt those tossers would have been missed...

Career criminals (dealers, strong armers, robbers) know the risks and the full knowledge of what they are doing; in these cases, they should NOT have ANY access to human rights; of course, you have to make sure they really did their crimes first. Until DNA is foolproof, this could be tricky. You'll never get rid of police corruption though - so framing or fitting people up will probably go on forever, but that's a risk that has to be taken for the good of the majority.

It is now suggested that people take after their peers more than their parents; this might explain why well brought up kids turn to drugs even if they've had a good life at home. Of course, no matter what people say, it DOESN'T automatically follow that potheads will turn into crack junkies; that old chestnut has been banded around ad nauseam and its only weak willed people who let that happen...

I know of someone who smoked a spliff. Within 4 months he was on H. And then he decided to smother his dealer/landlord (no-one seems to know which) with a pillow. He's just come out after 7 years for manslaughter. Why he didn't get life is beyond me - "dimished responsibility" my ARSE - HE took the drug - HE'S responsible whether he's thinking straight or not. Therefore he should have got life - especially bearing in mind he's totally blind - someone like THAT with that disability is DANGEROUS on the outside... Forget that touchy feely crap in cases like this - either he got "broken" in prison, or he's now a hardened criminal. One thing's for sure, he's one hell of a loose canon to have outside...

As others have said though, many druggies have (even if they DID start the chain themselves) got there by moments of weakness or bad luck; no-one's perfect - let's face it. A friend of mine's bloke works in Exeter's hospitals, as a "porter" for the messed up druggies/mental patients that get admitted after going off on one; he's seen it all (including a suicide that had been missed for 2 weeks - in the heat of summer - one word of advice - if you can't see them anywhere else when they abscond - look up...) and he's very down on drugs, but he's not down on the people. Why, because although they may have put themselves in that position, they aren't total lost causes - they can change given time and encouragement; just watch your back. Of course, this is double standards based on the manslaughterer above, but case-by-case and all that.

I'd be a total hypocrite if I got on a high horse about drugs. I've not always been a squeaky clean perfect example of a totally dried out person, just like a good 12 million other British people. But I CAN tell you I had a good upbringing, have very nice parents, and a lot of good friends... But I *have* never done crack, h, or PCP for starters...

 

Re: Re: Tone

Tones, It's not everywhere thankfully, but it is in more than enough places, BUT the point is it Shouldn't be there. (thats THE point)
Granted your Daugthers (and many others) are intelligent enough to avoid such dross, although a lot can't/don't due to the addiction that's got hold of them.
Rehab, CAN work, if the addicts can admit to their problem, given enough help to stop offeneding and help reintergrating them back into soceity, and they can stay away from the people/situation that caused them to start in first place (no small order I realise)
Drugs has no boundries or Class devides, it causes the same problem in all users.
I do agree with most of the posters about prision, putting people convicted of drugs into a drug cultured enviroment, just componds the problem (not in all cases, but the majority I feel)
As for Pauls idea of making the sellers responsible, laudable but how you going to implement it?
I do also agree with legalising Soft drugs, cannibas and the like.
Hard stuff needs to be tackled at source, the manufacturing ends, at the said countires involved, however due to trhe economics and 'favours' asked by certain Gov's it's over looked.
More needs to be done in stopping the importing of the stuff, dry up the supply (again no mean feat)
This 'beggars belief' that so many of you on the moral high ground here are amazed at?
Do any of you have any 'Real experiance' of the Real horror on the ground the drugs cause, I'm not talking the small pretty (still very relevent) crime, I mean the misery of drugs, the boys the do the shifting, the aftermath of picking up the pieces of other peoples lives? after the addiction has passed if that lucky.
I Have had more than my fair share of experiances with this, pretty and rose tinited it aint, so yes, my inital thoughts are that verbaitum, so are the effects of drugs, not just from the dealer pocket, to users health, their family/friends, the people they steal from/mug/threaten/extort, it's the domino effect.
From an addict who steals from an old lady, doesn't hurt her, however she has shock & heart attack resulting from said ebcounter, she dies in hospital 3 days later, he children are distraught, the grandchilden have lost a realitive, burial, morning stress, time of work, boils into hatread and it goes on.
Tones, if you (god forbid) one of your Daughters in a plain and simple road accident, it would bad enough, but what if the said accident was caused by a getaway car, driven by drug dealer trying to escape the police, ? Would that change your feelings?
I'm not trying to justify this, just merely point out the things from the minority side of the fence.
Not all drug users are bad, a lot do seek help, and it should been given, if the addicts admits and recognisies their problems (first step with any addict), then help & Surport should be readily available for sure.
THose that deliberately seek to encourage the use of/co-urse and supply hard drugs are a different matter entirely.