Free Healthcare for lawbreakers?

[Guest jrhairychest]

The corruption you've seen is exactly the same here, except it's done under the banner of championing human rights. The corruption's in our legal system. Perhaps you're a bit young to understand but there's something seriously wrong in the UK society when you have criminals having their rights championed left right and centre. The same human rights are ignored when you get old folk who are left to sit in their own piss in shoddy care homes. But then, theres no money in championing that is there......no, thought not.

 

 

I do see some of where you are coming from, there are examples that I can give of victims being charged for violence against a criminal who was in their house to steal. If a criminal threatened my home and family I would want the law to support my actions to defend my property and loved ones, not arrest and charge me.

 

However, there is a grey area here as suggested by Ginger_Warrior, where the 'arrest' is more ambiguous and evidence sketchy. One cannot make the assumption that the person is guilty of a crime until all information is put forward to the court. I think it is dangerous to assume that because someone has been arrested they are automatically a criminal. Our police and justice system is hardly infallible at the best of times. Consider those criminals that were not found out too, they accessed free health care etc. So what happens when they are found out and convicted? Do you bill them for all the times they have used health care whilst conducting criminal activities? Or maybe only those in prison should be denied? Where is the line?

For your first paragraph - So am I right in that the UK often puts the criminal before the victim?

 

For your second paragraph - The UK does not charge for medical treatment but thatd be a good start.

 

You do realise that people have spent decades in prison for crimes that was later proven they weren't capable of committing, right? They get everything but lynched by friends and family, and even once proven innocent, they don't get compensated for the large chunk of their lives lost.

Youre wrong. In the UK they do.

 

 

And you're having doctors make that decision?

 

If you're the doctor for a serious burn which goes untreated and leads to a systemic infection, potentially an infection which could drastically change that person's quality of life, you're going to sit on your high horse in court when they inevitably sue you for dereliction of care, and say you were protecting the interests of "human rights" and "self-responsibility"?

 

Frankly, I think you're being ridiculous.

No, you can take that decision out of a doctors hand if you set it as law/guidelines. A doctor can already make decisions such as not saving your life.

 

On the one hand youre defending criminal rights but on the other I dont see you waving a banner defending the victims. And Im being ridiculous?

 

Brb buying criminals for slaves since they've 'forfeited human rights'.

You already do Your country uses chain gangs.

 

This is exactly the problem I see with jr's argument. The UK legal system isn't corrupt because it allows prisoner's healthcare as far I am concerned. The area of disagreement here is essentially how extreme (not intended as a pejorative) you want to be with interpreting the extent of their social contract compared to their rights.

 

I think that a lawbreaker should certainly forfeit their right to vote, which is granted by their social contract, for the duration of their prison sentence, but I think that denying them the free healthcare entitled to everyone else is cruel as far as I am concerned. Self-responsibility is one thing, but given that crime has always been a fact of life, and that it has been decreasing in the UK for years with criminals getting healthcare, extreme knee-jerks aren't going to help affairs.

That depends on how you define extreme. Im a taxpayer. I would rather see my taxes be paid to other deserving things such as helping the old/disabled/unintentional jobless etc. As far as Im concerned that money is better spent in those areas rather than someone who intentionally broke the law.

 

Youre seriously misinformed or youve had your head under a stone if you dont believe the human rights system in the UK is corrupt as there are many in the UK that would disagree with you. You define it as cruel to not let a prisoner/criminal have only emergency treatment yet there are many more cruel things that seem to be permissible e.g. Ignorance of victims rights or the plight of old people which you conveniently ignored (Just like the politicians and legal profession do).

 

What has free healthcare got to do with decreasing crime statistics? I take it the crime rate is falling because criminals get free health care? Jesus.

 

Speediing. Drink driving. Downloading music. Prostitution. Riding iwthout a helment

All low-level crimes, but all crimes none the less. So, based on the quote (specifically the bolded) you think people who do these things deeserve to be stripped of most of their human rights?

Well, we've just cut a HUGE segment of the populus down haven't we.

 

Why should you have the same rights as the rest of the population while in prison or custody, regardless of your crime? Note the self-responsibility which you conveniently forgot to put in bold or are we taking this away from any citizens responsibility?

[Bxpprod]

Why should you have the same rights as the rest of the population while in prison or custody, regardless of your crime? Note the “self-responsibility” which you conveniently forgot to put in bold or are we taking this away from any citizens responsibility?

 

I'm not attacking the notion of self-responsibility. Anything to reduce government intervention is GOOD in my eyes. I'm trying to disseminate what arbitrary cutoff (if any) you are going to apply when you say LAW BREAKERS should have rights taken away.

 

There is a significant difference for instance, between someone J-Walking, to someone who murders.

 

Riding a bicycle without a helmet is common practise in my country and not considered dangerous, but we do have bikers and cars separated at all times. Either way, not wearing a helmet may be negligent, but not necessary a danger to society or a severe crime. I would not consider someone neglecting to wear a helmet a criminal, whereas I would consider people that make drugs or kill someone whilst driving under influence criminals.

 

But it is dangerous, even without car intervention. Falling off a bike can cause severe brain damage, which, whilst not necessarily being a "danger" to society, can (in countries like mine with Public Healthcare available) cause significant cost to the taxpayer.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Why should you have the same rights as the rest of the population while in prison or custody, regardless of your crime? Note the self-responsibility which you conveniently forgot to put in bold or are we taking this away from any citizens responsibility?

 

I'm not attacking the notion of self-responsibility. Anything to reduce government intervention is GOOD in my eyes. I'm trying to disseminate what arbitrary cutoff (if any) you are going to apply when you say LAW BREAKERS should have rights taken away.

 

There is a significant difference for instance, between someone J-Walking, to someone who murders.

 

Yes of course there is a difference. Do we create a tiered system where one criminal has more rights than others, based on crime severity?

[Kimberly]

Brb buying criminals for slaves since they've 'forfeited human rights'.

You already do – Your country uses chain gangs.

 

No, it doesn't. The only state where it's allowed has it as a voluntary practice. There are some people who keep trying to reinstate it, but it never makes it beyond proposal.

 

And you're refusing to address the main flaw with your opinion just to vilify your detractors.

[Kaida23]

That said, personally I would like to see smokers pay additional health insurance fees due to their choice to smoke and the resulting increased risk of lung cancer and related conditions.

Just so you know, we do. Also, higher life insurance premiums.

[Nomrombom]

That said, personally I would like to see smokers pay additional health insurance fees due to their choice to smoke and the resulting increased risk of lung cancer and related conditions.

Just so you know, we do. Also, higher life insurance premiums.

 

Not to mention very high taxes on cigarettes.

[sees_all1]

Access to healthcare free at the point of need and funded by the state is an inalienable right for all UK citizens, regardless of whatever personal opinions you have on the matter, which is the example made in Croc's point.

A right to free healthcare is more of a legal right/entitlement/privilege than an inalienable right. A simple example of this is if I'm suffering some immediate ailment that threatens my life (say a heart attack), and the person next to me has a life saving drug (aspirin?), I don't have an inalienable right to their aspirin. If I die and they do nothing to help me, they're not at fault, there's no law that can force them to help me (even if they were a doctor).

 

To deny criminals access to that treatment is to take away one of the most fundamental pillars of British society, despite the fact that up until the point they were convicted, they were paying National Insurance in order to fund the service they would later need to rely on.

Access to healthcare and free healthcare are not the same thing. Moreover, costly treatment in a specialized burn ward and generic treatment are not the same either, and giving specialized (costly) treatment is different than giving generic treatment. Hospitals may have the moral (and in some cases) legal obligation to treat everyone, but that doesn't make them obligated to give the absolute best care available, especially for those that can't afford it.

Healthcare rationing is a cold hard fact, and those with more money or power get access to better care. It doesn't matter if that's right or wrong, it's just the way it is.

[Randox]

In all honesty, in a perfect world, I would love to certain people who partake in certain practices receive little or no healthcare at the expense of the public, and to be treated as second priority anyway. Part of what I mean by a perfect world is where we know with 100% certainty whether you have done x or not.

 

So if you half blow yourself up making drugs, or fry yourself stealing from a transformer, then no, in my perfect world we would leave you to die, or at least give you the absolute bare minimum treatment required to keep you alive. Although a case could be made where while people are not totally forced, they are definitely somewhat driven to certain activities by circumstance, and I don't believe in punishing people because they weren't lucky to be born into boat loads of money. So the perfect world would have to go beyond knowing if you did x to knowing why you did x. If you tried to cook meth for shits in giggles, you don't get help, if you did it because you were trying to find a way to pay for food for your family, well then not helping you wouldn't really be fair.

 

Then you have things like drunk driving, where the list of reasons you could possibly deserve help is a lot smaller, and a lot less likely. The one that is coming to mind is if your trying to save someone else's life, and the only way to facilitate that is to drive them, then you might make a case. But then your into things like is trying to save a life justification for endangering the lives of countless others (I'm going to go with no).

 

So even in a perfect world scenario, where you know what everyone did, and why, its still not a clear cut thing. For me, while I still believe everyone needs to see justice for their actions regardless of intent or reason, I do feel that certain motivations would merit your life not being forfeit.

 

But in the real world, you can pretty much never know even one of those things with 100% certainty, so I don't think it would ever be fair to try and deny care because you thought someone injured themselves doing something stupid or criminal.

 

In the real world, even though it doesn't feel as good, a rehabilitation approach (some European countries I think are really into this) to the legal system as a whole instead of a vengeance oriented system (USA being the prime example in the developed world) is probably your best bet, since that actually fights the crime rate itself so that you have less criminals immolating themselves and getting shot, and that not only lowers the legal costs, but the medical ones as well.

 

Or, if you can get around all those pesky things that give people on death row all those appeals, you can go for the ultimate vengeance oriented system and make everything punishable by death. All the potential issues from that kind of law aside, it would certainly stop the criminals from seeking (public funded) medical help, since that would be tantamount to signing your own death warrant.

[Kimberly]

A right to free healthcare is more of a legal right/entitlement/privilege than an inalienable right.

 

That's the big issue, and why the healthcare issue is like two mules bashing their heads together. There is a growing number of people, myself included, who feel that it is an inalienable right and therefore want it stated and handled as such.

[sees_all1]

A right to free healthcare is more of a legal right/entitlement/privilege than an inalienable right.

 

That's the big issue, and why the healthcare issue is like two mules bashing their heads together. There is a growing number of people, myself included, who feel that it is an inalienable right and therefore want it stated and handled as such.

 

I don't know how you can declare it as an inalienable right, as in you are guaranteed healthcare from your first breath until your last, and that you're guaranteed anything and everything that prolongs or improves the quality of your life, no matter what the cost to society or the dangers.

 

I also don't understand how healthcare can be declared an inalienable right when basic nutrition hasn't been, and isn't being debated.

 

As long as off-duty doctors have a right to do nothing in emergency situations, healthcare cannot be declared an inalienable right.

[The Dark Lord]

 

I don't believe that healthcare is an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. I don't believe doctors or hospitals should have a moral legal obligation to treat people.

 

 

 

That's why they don't let people like you become doctors.

[sees_all1]

 

I don't believe that healthcare is an inalienable right endowed by the Creator. I don't believe doctors or hospitals should have a moral legal obligation to treat people.

 

 

 

That's why they don't let people like you become doctors.

:rolleyes:

[Kimberly]

I also don't understand how healthcare can be declared an inalienable right when basic nutrition hasn't been, and isn't being debated.

 

Because right now of the two issues, one is more "unjust" because companies are just allowed to get away with beggaring half the population while other companies milk the overpriced teat of procedures, and hospitals have no other choice but to inflate their prices to remain open.

 

There's no point at having good nutrition if you can still end up with a health emergency that you absolutely had no control over and end up with the same amount of debt that could have bought you the opportunity to obtain a college education. COBRA is a joke, most health insurance premiums don't help your costs the older you get to maintain a standard of life, and there is constant battles to get treatment methods "approved". An example: my father has gastroperisis and delayed emptying. A treatment that could prevent him from basically getting sick-up every time he eats would not be approved by his insurance back when he was able to work and the only other option which they WOULD have covered, was banned by the FDA, despite 3 doctor letters advocating the procedure and several letters written by our family.

 

Meh.

[sees_all1]

The current boondoggle of legislation in the US really doesn't have bearing on whether healthcare is an inalienable right.

 

When thinking inalienable rights, you should think more of revolutions and the formation of new governments. For instance, if some country X wasn't providing free healthcare for its people, it wouldn't be reasonable for its people to overthrow the current government, establish a new government, and force the health providers to treat everyone for what they give them.

 

As a counter example, it is reasonable for a people to overthrow their government for denying freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, or things like property rights, individual body rights, or the right to defend oneself.

[Kimberly]

Human rights, not civil rights, is what I'm talking about.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Brb buying criminals for slaves since they've 'forfeited human rights'.

You already do – Your country uses chain gangs.

 

No, it doesn't. The only state where it's allowed has it as a voluntary practice. There are some people who keep trying to reinstate it, but it never makes it beyond proposal.

 

And you're refusing to address the main flaw with your opinion just to vilify your detractors.

 

Sorry Kimberly. I guess removing the shackles, putting them in workshops and making them produce goods for companies for an absolute pittance isn't chain gang slavery is it .e.g 4 cents to a dollar an hour? :rolleyes: Oh and don't forget the legitmate workforce that lose their jobs because the slave community prison population can be exploited. No workers rights, insurance and a pitiful wage if any at all.

 

That's all ok as it's done under the banner of capitalism. Anything to save a buck eh?

[Furah]

You do realise that people have spent decades in prison for crimes that was later proven they weren't capable of committing, right? They get everything but lynched by friends and family, and even once proven innocent, they don't get compensated for the large chunk of their lives lost.

You're wrong. In the UK they do.

 

What compensation?

[Guest jrhairychest]

You do realise that people have spent decades in prison for crimes that was later proven they weren't capable of committing, right? They get everything but lynched by friends and family, and even once proven innocent, they don't get compensated for the large chunk of their lives lost.

You're wrong. In the UK they do.

 

What compensation?

 

Yep. Here

[Furah]

Well, TIL.

[Kimberly]

That's all ok as it's done under the banner of capitalism. Anything to save a buck eh?

 

Thanks...yet again for avoiding the point.

 

[hide=What should be happening]

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/treatmentprisoners.htm

 

[hide=Nutrition, Exercise, and Clothing]

Clothing and bedding

 

17. (1) Every prisoner who is not allowed to wear his own clothing shall be provided with an outfit of clothing suitable for the climate and adequate to keep him in good health. Such clothing shall in no manner be degrading or humiliating.

 

(2) All clothing shall be clean and kept in proper condition. Underclothing shall be changed and washed as often as necessary for the maintenance of hygiene.

 

(3) In exceptional circumstances, whenever a prisoner is removed outside the institution for an authorized purpose, he shall be allowed to wear his own clothing or other inconspicuous clothing.

 

18. If prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothing, arrangements shall be made on their admission to the institution to ensure that it shall be clean and fit for use.

 

19. Every prisoner shall, in accordance with local or national standards, be provided with a separate bed, and with separate and sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued, kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness.

 

Food

 

20. (1) Every prisoner shall be provided by the administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served.

 

(2) Drinking water shall be available to every prisoner whenever he needs it.

 

Exercise and sport

 

21. (1) Every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily if the weather permits.

 

(2) Young prisoners, and others of suitable age and physique, shall receive physical and recreational training during the period of exercise. To this end space, installations and equipment should be provided.

[/hide]

 

[hide=Healthcare]

Medical services

 

22. (1) At every institution there shall be available the services of at least one qualified medical officer who should have some knowledge of psychiatry. The medical services should be organized in close relationship to the general health administration of the community or nation. They shall include a psychiatric service for the diagnosis and, in proper cases, the treatment of states of mental abnormality.

 

(2) Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialized institutions or to civil hospitals. Where hospital facilities are provided in an institution, their equipment, furnishings and pharmaceutical supplies shall be proper for the medical care and treatment of sick prisoners, and there shall be a staff of suitable trained officers.

 

(3) The services of a qualified dental officer shall be available to every prisoner.

 

23. (1) In women's institutions there shall be special accommodation for all necessary pre-natal and post-natal care and treatment. Arrangements shall be made wherever practicable for children to be born in a hospital outside the institution. If a child is born in prison, this fact shall not be mentioned in the birth certificate.

 

(2) Where nursing infants are allowed to remain in the institution with their mothers, provision shall be made for a nursery staffed by qualified persons, where the infants shall be placed when they are not in the care of their mothers.

 

24. The medical officer shall see and examine every prisoner as soon as possible after his admission and thereafter as necessary, with a view particularly to the discovery of physical or mental illness and the taking of all necessary measures; the segregation of prisoners suspected of infectious or contagious conditions; the noting of physical or mental defects which might hamper rehabilitation, and the determination of the physical capacity of every prisoner for work.

 

25. (1) The medical officer shall have the care of the physical and mental health of the prisoners and should daily see all sick prisoners, all who complain of illness, and any prisoner to whom his attention is specially directed.

 

(2) The medical officer shall report to the director whenever he considers that a prisoner's physical or mental health has been or will be injuriously affected by continued imprisonment or by any condition of imprisonment.

 

26. (1) The medical officer shall regularly inspect and advise the director upon:

 

( a ) The quantity, quality, preparation and service of food;

 

( b ) The hygiene and cleanliness of the institution and the prisoners;

 

( c ) The sanitation, heating, lighting and ventilation of the institution;

 

( d ) The suitability and cleanliness of the prisoners' clothing and bedding;

 

( e ) The observance of the rules concerning physical education and sports, in cases where there is no technical personnel in charge of these activities.

 

(2) The director shall take into consideration the reports and advice that the medical officer submits according to rules 25 (2) and 26 and, in case he concurs with the recommendations made, shall take immediate steps to give effect to those recommendations; if they are not within his competence or if he does not concur with them, he shall immediately submit his own report and the advice of the medical officer to higher authority.

[/hide]

 

[hide=Working Conditions]

Work

 

71. (1) Prison labour must not be of an afflictive nature.

 

(2) All prisoners under sentence shall be required to work, subject to their physical and mental fitness as determined by the medical officer.

 

(3) Sufficient work of a useful nature shall be provided to keep prisoners actively employed for a normal working day.

 

(4) So far as possible the work provided shall be such as will maintain or increase the prisoners, ability to earn an honest living after release.

 

(5) Vocational training in useful trades shall be provided for prisoners able to profit thereby and especially for young prisoners.

 

(6) Within the limits compatible with proper vocational selection and with the requirements of institutional administration and discipline, the prisoners shall be able to choose the type of work they wish to perform.

 

72. (1) The organization and methods of work in the institutions shall resemble as closely as possible those of similar work outside institutions, so as to prepare prisoners for the conditions of normal occupational life.

 

(2) The interests of the prisoners and of their vocational training, however, must not be subordinated to the purpose of making a financial profit from an industry in the institution.

 

73. (1) Preferably institutional industries and farms should be operated directly by the administration and not by private contractors.

 

(2) Where prisoners are employed in work not controlled by the administration, they shall always be under the supervision of the institution's personnel. Unless the work is for other departments of the government the full normal wages for such work shall be paid to the administration by the persons to whom the labour is supplied, account being taken of the output of the prisoners.

 

74. (1) The precautions laid down to protect the safety and health of free workmen shall be equally observed in institutions.

 

(2) Provision shall be made to indemnify prisoners against industrial injury, including occupational disease, on terms not less favourable than those extended by law to free workmen.

 

75. (1) The maximum daily and weekly working hours of the prisoners shall be fixed by law or by administrative regulation, taking into account local rules or custom in regard to the employment of free workmen.

 

(2) The hours so fixed shall leave one rest day a week and sufficient time for education and other activities required as part of the treatment and rehabilitation of the prisoners.

 

76. (1) There shall be a system of equitable remuneration of the work of prisoners.

 

(2) Under the system prisoners shall be allowed to spend at least a part of their earnings on approved articles for their own use and to send a part of their earnings to their family.

 

(3) The system should also provide that a part of the earnings should be set aside by the administration so as to constitute a savings fund to be handed over to the prisoner on his release.

[/hide][/hide]

 

[hide=What sometimes happens]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-chen/georgia-prison-strike-a-h_b_798928.html

 

On December 9, a diverse group of nonviolent protesters across Georgia stood up for their rights, calling for decent wages, better social services and respect for their civil liberties. It didn't take long for the government to crack down on the demonstrations, however: the protesters were already in prison.

 

The uprising of Georgia inmates on December 9 defied the stereotype of the chaotic "prison riot" in the public imagination. Yet neither did "Lockdown for Liberty" fit within the conventional model of civil disobedience or industrial action. But when the inmates in at least six different prisons refused to leave their cells to report to work and other activities that day, a strike began. And it effectively paralyzed a small chunk of the bureaucratic monstrosity of America's prison system.

 

The incarcerated have historically filled the dregs of the American workforce, an emblem of racial subjugation often invisible in the politics of labor and social policy. It was against this hidden legacy of exploitation that the Georgia inmates, with the support of the NAACP and other civil rights advocates, raised issues common to incarcerated people nationwide: abusive treatment, degrading living conditions, a lack of accountability in the administration and parole authorities, and a lack of basic educational and social services (see below).

 

Pointedly invoking the term "slave" to describe the circumstances under which they toiled, the strikers showed how historically entrenched racial divisions play out today in the black-white disparities throughout the criminal justice system. Still, Georgia protesters included Latinos and whites as well as blacks, in a joint effort to resist and challenge structural injustices.

 

Their demands were hardly radical, but rather, embodied mainstream standards for reasonable and humane treatment: protection from cruel and unusual punishment by officers, affordable medicine when they're sick, and above all, fair pay for their labor. According to the Atlanta-Journal Constitution, "state law forbids paying inmates except for one limited program."

 

http://blackagendareport.com/content/georgia-prison-strike-one-year-later-activists-outside-walls-have-failed-those-inside-walls

The Concerned Coalition To Respect Prisoner Rights was supposed to issue public reports of its fact-finding prison visits. That never happened. It was to have initiated a long-term dialog with state officials in pursuit of the inmates' eminently just and reasonable demands. That never happened either. It should have called public meetings and begun to organize a lasting campaign to educate the public on the meaning of Georgia's and the nation's prison state, and the possibilities for radical reform. These are the things the prisoners expected of their allies and spokespeople on the outside. But compromised and undermined from within and without, the coalition was unable to make any of these things happen. Thus the trust that Georgia prisoners placed in activists outside the walls to organize in support of their demands was betrayed.

[/hide]

 

Using one example of a failing system--where it clearly goes against the laws defined--in your eyes is apparently okay enough to strip people of their rights regardless. Or you use it as your guilt-beating stick to force others to agree with you.

 

Either way, I think your opinion is twisted and falls back on "Well X is doing it so you shouldn't care" too heavily to even be taken seriously.

[Jaffy1]

That said, personally I would like to see smokers pay additional health insurance fees due to their choice to smoke and the resulting increased risk of lung cancer and related conditions.

Just so you know, we do. Also, higher life insurance premiums.

 

Unfortunately not the case here. :(

Anyhow, to answer bxpprod's earlier question, I would distinguish between "intentional" harmful acts that are also dangerous to others and acts that are not.

[sees_all1]

Human rights, not civil rights, is what I'm talking about.

We're talking about inalienable rights, the ones "endowed by the Creator". An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical.

Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

[Kimberly]

An inalienable right is something a government can't take away without being tyrannical.

Assurance of healthcare is not an inalienable right.

 

In that case there is no inalienable rights in a society. Rights can be taken away or twisted in any circumstance without the ruling powers being considered "tyrannical". If we followed the "endowed by the creator" rule, then the only thing we truly have a right to is being alive. And that forms neither an acceptable condition of "human"/inalienable rights or civil rights. I don't know if I agree with that.

[Ginger_Warrior]

We're moving away from the topic. This isn't a discussion on whether healthcare is an inalienable right or whatever.

 

The central flaw to any plan which denies would-be criminals access to the same level of healthcare as any normal citizen is that you're asking doctors to be judge, jury and executioner. They lack both the legal and moral responsibility to make that decision, and until a court finds their patient guilty of the crime they're meant to using as a factor for deciding their "right to care", they have to treat them just as equally as other patients. Given the nature of burns injuries (acute, high risk of infection and potentially fatal), the vast majority of people requiring emergency healthcare for a burn will not be fit to stand trial whilst the burns, plus any potential side-effects, are being treated, making the whole debate academic.

 

If what we're really arguing is the principle "Criminals should not have equal access to state-funded healthcare as law-abiding citizens", then severe burns aren't a good case study to reference.

[Crocefisso]

 

This is exactly the problem I see with jr's argument. The UK legal system isn't corrupt because it allows prisoner's healthcare as far I am concerned. The area of disagreement here is essentially how extreme (not intended as a pejorative) you want to be with interpreting the extent of their social contract compared to their rights.

 

I think that a lawbreaker should certainly forfeit their right to vote, which is granted by their social contract, for the duration of their prison sentence, but I think that denying them the free healthcare entitled to everyone else is cruel as far as I am concerned. Self-responsibility is one thing, but given that crime has always been a fact of life, and that it has been decreasing in the UK for years with criminals getting healthcare, extreme knee-jerks aren't going to help affairs.

That depends on how you define extreme. Im a taxpayer. I would rather see my taxes be paid to other deserving things such as helping the old/disabled/unintentional jobless etc. As far as Im concerned that money is better spent in those areas rather than someone who intentionally broke the law.

 

Youre seriously misinformed or youve had your head under a stone if you dont believe the human rights system in the UK is corrupt as there are many in the UK that would disagree with you. You define it as cruel to not let a prisoner/criminal have only emergency treatment yet there are many more cruel things that seem to be permissible e.g. Ignorance of victims rights or the plight of old people which you conveniently ignored (Just like the politicians and legal profession do).

 

What has free healthcare got to do with decreasing crime statistics? I take it the crime rate is falling because criminals get free health care? Jesus.

 

Really, jr? The plight of old people? Care to be a little more specific, perhaps even with some evidence? Again, victims rights are not an issue in the UK whatsoever. You're speaking to someone whose family comes from Sicily, where crimes used to go unpunished because of money/connections, and to an extent still do.

 

The problem with your argument is that there is no convincing case for stating that human rights in the UK are corrupt in any absolute sense, while, in relative terms, they rank among the best on the planet.

 

I added in an aside about crime statistics to counter your points on self-responsibility and how awful it is today, when in the 1970s and before - which you seem quite nostalgic about - crime was statistically higher and so presumably self-responsibility more lacking.

 

@sees: The problem with citing Locke is that his conception of liberalism is over 300 years old and not to be taken seriously. It's long since been surpassed.