General Chat

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

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

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.

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?

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.

"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.

People are sent to prison as a punishment not for a punishment. We live in Great Britain, not in some third world country

It grieves me to say this, but I find myself agreeing with Ken Clarke.

Restorative justice may not appeal to the "lock em up and feed em on bread and water before hanging them from the neck" brigade, but its worth a go.

Sue x

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.

The last time I perused the Sentencing Act I don't remember Salmonella Poisoning as a legitimate sentencing option. It must be a recent Amendment.


xxxxx mick

Salmonella from eggs doesn't usually cause that much of problem for otherwise healthy people...those eggs must have been really rank to do that...so I do think they have a case...no one is allowed to poison you whether you are a criminal or otherwise.

I certainly think someone should be brought to book for supplying and/or preparing the eggs in a negligent manner.

I would suggest the amount of compensation they each receive should be capped at the average national weekly wage, for the period they were actually ill... eg one week of throwing up equals one week's 'pay'.

Fines and payable victim compensation are "not squashed "if someone defaults and gets arrested for none payments of fines,usually they spend just a few days or so locked up,then released,then re-assessed and a new order to make payments.

Lucky no one died,they are paying dues for their crime, which could be for unpaid motoring fines or on remand awating trial !!poisoning them aswell just aint PC;}}}}}

This one got me thinking.

A year or so back I was the victim of a crime. Property damage. Along with four other people. Committed by some idiot who lives 50 miles away. Presumably he carried out the attacks as a laugh.

Anyway, the insurance company sorted out my losses, the idiot went to court, all reasonable.

Then, I get a letter from the court saying I'd been awarded compensation of £500. (I assume the other four victims were also awarded similar amounts but I don't know for sure.) The money is drifting my way in small and silly amounts and I doubt I will ever see the total sum. I assume the idiot is either on benefits or does not earn a great deal of money. The letter from the court explained that if he stops paying the compensation he can be pursued through the courts and will end up being imprisoned, in which case no more compensation would be payable. The mighty hand of justice will bang him up for a year or two maybe. All well and good. But, that would be a no-win situation all round wouldn't it? His victims would lose out on the rest of their compensation, the tax-payer would foot the bill for his incarceration, and he would lose his liberty. Who wins? Justice? Maybe, but at a price.

But, if say, he was already in prison and had eaten a rotten egg sandwich and were to possibly be in line for a few thousand in compensation then what? I'd say, give him his £10,000 (or whatever) let him repay me and the four others, let him repay his "rent" for the last few months and let him walk away - with the balance (if anything). That's a win-win situation.

And then, to take a step back, if the idiot defaults on his payments - don't lock him up for a year or two. Work out what that would cost, pay the victims their compensation, donate a chunk of cash to other victims of crime where the perpetrator has not been caught and make the idiot do something worthwhile ... frees up space in prison for some other mindless moron.

Interesting topic though.

Jill

p.s. My view is otherwise - tough on them. They chose an egg sandwich that day. Shame. Do they have rights when they're in prison? No, not really. They've maybe deprived others of their rights/freedom/property/life so hey. Prison's tough (or should be).

& I can't see what problem there is in paying back the money they owe any victims or the tax payers first :)

Yes, the whole world and their aunty would sue somewhere that poisoned them. Are you saying that they shouldn't?

The justice chiefs are accepting the blame as they had the vicarious liability.

Honestly, I cant see what the problem is here.

What if it was a victimless crime? Like not paying council tax, unpaid parking fines, that sort of thing?

~~~Secret Red ^^ Squirrel~~~ **007 1/2** Today at 09:53 Request review
If they do get compensation in the end, it should immediately go towards paying either their victims or towards the costs of their trial or imprisonment.

i go with that one .

Hmmm. My take on it is that if we, as a civilised society, incarcerate people for various crimes (which I agree with wholeheartedly) there is a duty of care to ensure that they are kept in conditions that are not health threatening. The truth is, no one has been awarded any compensation yet and the sums are purely speculative, dreamed up by the tabloid press, as you would expect.

The urban myth of comfortable holiday camp prisons marches on, though. Myths become more believable the more they are repeated.

What a load of c**p - pay the money to a deserving cause - they chose to stay at that hotel
Does anyone know how much our injured soldiers receive - do they get a pension?
If a soldier is killed what compensation do his wife and children receive?

Liz

Jean, off the tax payer probably, you know how soft and daft we are in this country, we like to waste tax payers money on the stoopid of things. I agree with all comments so far, thanks.


That's an eggscellent idea there Supercrutch:)

I think that any compensation should be limited to,
or go towards paying for their health care while unwell.after all they ARE being forcibly held in a Hotel, not of their choosing.......LOL.

Bob