[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Possession shouldnt be illegal anyways, but thats a whole other story

From my experience, you are MUCH less likely to be violent or anything on drugs anyways. Personally I just go into my own happy little world and talk a load of ****e.

I agree, alcohol tends to make people far more violent and aggressive but you always hear people say "Oh, he must have been on something"! eh no he was drunk.........

[Stu]

I do love that happy little world.

[Tom.]

Rehabilitation is what drug addicts need, not locking up. Some people are beyond help, in which case the NHS should start withdrawing funding for drug related illnesses.

Locking them up will lead to increases in incarcerated suicide and if the prisons will help them then it defeats the object of the help, because it could be done willingly in a hospital environment and not forcefully in a prison environment. There would be a higher liklihood of a relapse in a prison environment because people would have the mentality to get clean so they can get out.

If people don't want the help its up to them, its their health they're damaging but linking back to the start of the post, if thats the case then that person shouldn't be allowed treatment for drug related illnesses on the NHS.

[Stu]

The prison system is awash with drugs anyway. It's like sending a wino to a speakeasy.

Drugs should be treated as purely a health matter. Not a judicial one. If someone on drugs commits an act that infringes on the rights of others then yes, the act itself should be treated as a criminal matter.

[Tom.]

But it isn't necessarily a conscience decision whether you'll reoffend or not. Some people are just predispositioned to crime.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Tom.

But it isn't necessarily a conscience decision whether you'll reoffend or not. Some people are just predispositioned to crime.

Oh diddums. God forbid they take responsibility for their actions like the rest of us have to.

Of course its a conscious decision. They know it's wrong and they choose to proceed. They don't commit crime in a subconscious state!

[Tom.]

Originally Posted by Zippy

Oh diddums. God forbid they take responsibility for their actions like the rest of us have to.

Of course its a conscious decision. They know it's wrong and they choose to proceed. They don't commit crime in a subconscious state!

I didn't mean it in that sense, I meant that when a lot of criminals commit crime, they do it because they think its right or they think they'll get away with it. They think they'll be able to get away with it or justify it, and so won't be going to prison for it.

[Livia]

I think that you get the justice you can afford. In the early 90s, Ernest Saunders, former chairman of the Guinness Group, was released early from prison on compassionate grounds on account that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease. Soon after being released he made a full recovery - the first person in the history of the world ever to make a recovery from Alzheimer's. Of course, despite his doctors pleading his Alzheimer's case back then, with copious amounts of "evidence", he now says he was suffering from depression and not Alzheimer's.

Does anyone believe that a working-class Joe Schmoe would be released early from a 30 month sentence because he was suffering from anything?

Money talks, and nowhere does it speak louder than in the courts of justice.

[Livia]

If you two don't pack it in, I'm going to knock your heads together.

[Zippy]

The only really proven way to stop hardcore criminals from re-offending is to lock them away for longer. Which spares numerous victims and destroyed lives.

We need more prisons and longer sentences. No, its not the perfect solution and costs money but its certainly effective in physically preventing criminals committing more crime.

Like I said, more emphasis needs to be put on locking up the ones who are a physical threat to others. They are a menace to society and ruin lives.