General Chat

"Can someone explain to me why it is that if "their human rights and all that are wiped away the day they commit a crime and they get what they get!" we don't just shoot shoplifters on sight?

Or, I mean, at least once they've been convicted. Preferably after torturing them until we get bored.

We can lock them up, so obviously we can do what we like to them. Use them as shark bait, conduct medical experiments on them, poison them.

Just goes to show that what some people think makes no sense at all, I guess."

No I agree with you Janey, there was a lot of work done over the centuries for prison reform for a reason. However, I still believe that if compensation is paid (& I don't think it should be silly money) then the victims or the taxpayers who have't been compensated yet for the crimes should have the first refusal so to speak.

Well, we have to make a decision here. Do we accept that prisoners have no rights at all and can be treated as the whim takes the gaolers, or do we try to maintain a civilised outlook on this. So lets assume, as we must, that these prisoners were poisoned due to an act of negligence. What redress do they have for that other than to go to law and plead their case?

Yes, we live in a compensation culture. But when someone is sentenced to imprisonment, that is all they are sentenced to. The sentence doesn't include getting poisoned or anything else. So what are they to do when they are mistreated? They don't have a lot of options. Popular (but irrelevant) opinion says that, having suffered the harm done to them by negligence, they should not be recompensed for what has happened. What are the alternatives? Knock a bit off their sentence? lol, I can see that being popular. Let them watch a few more films on the communal telly? There are a few more alternatives, I admit, but not for a family orientated discussion board, methinks.

My thoughts haven't changed Eldrick however, I was also wondering about the wardens who got ill and whether they were entitled to eat the egg sandwiches in the first place. Should they be able to sue?

SRS -- "However, I still believe that if compensation is paid (& I don't think it should be silly money) then the victims or the taxpayers who have't been compensated yet for the crimes should have the first refusal so to speak."

I wasn't wading in on that bit. ;)

I do tend to think that it should be seizable to the same extent that anyone else's earnings or profits or court awards would be, to pay a judgment etc.

As for paying back room & board and the like ... well, prisoners aren't charged room & board. Taking their compensation for that purpose would essentially mean awarding no compensation at all.

Conrad Black (Lord Tubby of Fleet or whatever you folks call him) is a multimillionnaire. He is serving time in the US. He could afford to pay his full room & board, and probably the wages of all his warders. He isn't being charged anything. Rich prisoners in your country aren't charged room & board.

I don't see why someone awarded compensation for a harm done to them while in custody should be treated differently from a millionnaire in that respect.

hang on.... we're not charging them? Someone call Cameron and Clegg and tell them how we can help balance the books. ;)

difficult one here, the prisoners lost theirs right ......to be incarcerated at her his magesty's pleasure ( sure some one will know the correct wording) it doesn't say and to be posioned by them.

Any illegal gains that they have as assets are legally up for grabs.

If they a law suit ..that's not illegally gained but can be claimed against by an individual.

Other than that those who sue can be happy with a pot to piss in when they get out