It’s a shameful day when a weak-willed Government has to pay 198 convicted criminals compensation for stopping them taking drugs while in jail. 
Why couldn’t the Home Office stand up to them instead of caving in?
I’m all for human rights, but not when it is self-motivated and greedy and comes before common sense and justice. These addicts are set to get thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money for suffering “cold turkey,” which they claim amounted to torture, money they will no doubt spend to further fuel their addiction, most likely commiting more crimes, and it could even cost them their lives.
These cases could just be the tip of the iceberg, other druggies behind bars will soon wise up and make the same cash demands. I thought prison was meant to be rehabilitative, so it makes sense to get addicts off drugs, not condone them, which is what this payment in effect does.
Does this mean that our addicted prisoners will now expect to be able to continue taking illegal hard drugs while serving time? They claim that the prison system had no right to make them stop, or to put them through detox programmes using a heroin substitute, so what is their plan now? Or are there ample supplies available inside to keep them going anyway?
Could it be that John Reid is mindful of the fact that under European human rights, prisoners will be able to vote, and he is counting on their support?
I’m not sure they should have been allowed to suffer “cold turkey” but paying them compensation is going too far!
This is the most idiotic decision ever made.
When you commit a crime you should forfeit all human rights.
I would get the money back though by charging them for providing food, shelter and anything else that was provided. Hopefully they will be charged a lot more than they received
Elee, I’ve posted in a similar vein also today.
After leaving comments on my blog before, I’ve linked you. Any chance of a reciprocal link under “Lib Dems” ?
Perhaps prisoners will be able to vote from now on so that Tony Blair will be able to do so after he gets arrested?
Nick, Great minds then, and I am delighted to add your link.
I agree with Welshcakes Limoncello. Compensation may have been a move too far, but cold turkey without any proper planning behind that, not a good move.
As I have argued on my blog, the prisoners who were receiving treatment before going into jail should have had their treatment continued. Let us draw a parallel with someone who is being treated for an illness by the NHS. The fact that they are jailed doesn’t mean the treatment should stop.
Drug addiction is an illness. I would be tempted to say ‘leave them to it, they brought it on themselves’, but if someone is taking steps to be clean, they should not have treatment withdrawn.
WL and Bel, Hopefully the Prison drug rehabilitation programme will be reviewed as a result of this case. And what is being done to increase searches and prevent the illegal distribution of drugs on the inside?
Nothing surprises me anymore. It seems that it is the victims of crime who suffer more than those behind bars.
What a waste of tax payers money! 100%
Criminals automatically forfeit pretty much all human rights by breaking the law. If you break the law, why should you then receive it’s protection?
http://thethunderdragon.blogspot.com/2006/11/payout-for-drug-addicted-convicts.html
I disagree with all of you!
This case is a good example of the Legal System working well. You are deprived of your liberty while in prison but not your human rights.
What if one or two of these prisoners were later found not guilty of their offence? You would then be depriving them of their right to proper medical treatment.
As for the compensation money, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the over-generous sums given to some Cabinet Ministers and MP’s. I find it more distasteful that the likes of Prescott, Blunkett and Bob Kiley are receiving taxpayers money than the poorest members of our society. Sort out the debacle of Bob Kiley’s salary and then I will get worried about this compensation package.
This was a bad move by any stretch of the imagination. What is to stop alcoholics bringing a test case stating that it breaches their human rights to be denied a drink, what about chain smokers and gamblers?
Even though the government has paid out on this case there is nothing to stop other prisoners bringing more ridiculous test cases.
[…] UPDATE. Every blog I read on this topic yesterday was of a contrary view to mine (see, for example, Ellee Seymour, West Brom Blog and The Thunder Dragon). I hadn’t seen Tim Worstall’s post, which argued on broadly the same lines as mine. He states (in my view, rightly) that it is not altogether unreasonable to expect the Home Office to take responsibility for the standard of medical care received by prisoners in their care. It really is not about the heroin at all. It is about treatment. […]