Drug deaths in Scotland hit record high

[renton]

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

The criminal justice system should primarily be there to protect society from those who commit crime and to punish the perpetrators.

THEN it should be about rehabilitation. as a secondary priority.

Only once both steps are considered successful should a person be released.

I'm not disagreeing about the need for both but I am disagreeing about which is the higher priority.

For example, it's no use trying to persuade the parent of a murdered child that the primary focus is on turning the murderer into a useful member of society. What most parents and the rest of society will probably want is to see that person punished first and foremost.

Well, yeah I did try to qualify my statement with the 'to the degree that this is possible', in the case you put forward it seems unlikely that you'd be looking at a rehabilitative case. The priority in each case will obviously vary on the merits of the case.

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Singapore's drugs-related crime is far less than ours. That sounds like winning to me.

No, I'm not happy to carry on with our policy as it isn't working. Would you be happy to adopt Singapore's? If not why not?

I'll admit to not knowing too much about Singapore and their drug use, but did they have a drug use problem similar to ours previous to the implementation of this policy? By the way, Portugals drug use is also less than ours, and they had a problem bigger than ours.

I wouldn't be happy with Singapores approach because it doesn't address the problem, it only punishes the people involved. In Scotland it's always widely reported that drugs in prisons are rife, so putting an addict in a 5 x 5 cell with f**k all to do all day will result in one thing, and it's not them becoming a fine upstanding member of society.

4 minutes ago, throbber said:

 

Did Ross. Not say it a couple pages back or have i read it wrong? It’s true enough though, you can talk about the issues involved with tackling drug addiction but your sympathetic approach to addicts would dramatically change if you were on the receiving end of their criminal activity.

 

Fairly certain Ross was taking the piss, based on Tibbermore's rambling nonsense.

A junkie and his pal, quite expertly, robbed me of £40 one night after I'd visited a cash machine. Was I angry? Of course. Did I want the b*****ds caught? Of course. Do I hope that they are stuck in a circle of drug abuse and robbery? Absolutely not.

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

You need to stop putting words into my mouth. My words were very clear and don't require "interpreting" by you or anyone else. Either debate in good faith or find someone else to talk to.

I'm asking you to explain what you meant by the sentence I highlighted in bold in your post, as clearly I've taken it the wrong way. If you don't want to expand or clarify that then I'm quite happy to end our discussion here.

[renton]

Just now, oaksoft said:

tibbermore asked you a ood question earlier which got lost in his nonsense about addiction being a choice.

He said: "Why do you obsess about the perpetrators of crime and not the victims? You're clearly intelligent but woefully misguided."

What is your response to that?

Why are you and people who share your view so vocal about the rights of the criminal rather than the victims? Why is the victim often a side note?

I don't think victims are a side note. Conversations like this always skew towards how to further prevent crime, and of course this always pivots around the treatment of those who commit the crimes so in that sense we tend not to talk about victims. For the record I don't think Tibbermore or his ilk are any more focused on the rights of victims than the next person, theirs (on this thread at least) seems to be a visceral repulsion of those who commit crime under the influence of addiction rather than anything else.

In so far as I care about the prevention of crime and thus prevent producing more victims, I prefer an evidence based approach. If it were the case that hanging folk up by their thumbs worked as a deterrent then there would at least be some merit in talking about that, but it doesn't. As far as I can tell from the evidence I've seen the best way of lowering a large frequency of crimes is to work to reduce the social factors that lead people to crime in the first place, to rehabilitate those in the criminal justice system and engage them with society in such a way that they can become a useful member of society. I make no great claims to their moral state after such a treatment, only that they no longer commit crime. 

Victims should receive timely and comprehensive support for their trauma. They should feel protected. Beyond that there is a good reason we don't give victims of crime any significant input into the assignment of punishment, lest our criminal justice system become a vehicle for every cruel and unusual punishment that can be conjured from someone's imagination. That's only a normal response to being hurt, but the Criminal Justice system should be dispassionate: Protect the populace from further violence by the perpetrator, incarcerate those until they are no longer perceived to be a danger, preferably through rehabilitation over whatever time frame is required.

[Tibbermoresaint]

1 minute ago, The Moonster said:

I'll admit to not knowing too much about Singapore and their drug use, but did they have a drug use problem similar to ours previous to the implementation of this policy? By the way, Portugals drug use is also less than ours, and they had a problem bigger than ours.

I wouldn't be happy with Singapores approach because it doesn't address the problem, it only punishes the people involved. In Scotland it's always widely reported that drugs in prisons are rife, so putting an addict in a 5 x 5 cell with f**k all to do all day will result in one thing, and it's not them becoming a fine upstanding member of society.

Fairly certain Ross was taking the piss, based on Tibbermore's rambling nonsense.

A junkie and his pal, quite expertly, robbed me of £40 one night after I'd visited a cash machine. Was I angry? Of course. Did I want the b*****ds caught? Of course. Do I hope that they are stuck in a circle of drug abuse and robbery? Absolutely not.

 

I'd say Singapore's approach works. They have fewer junkies and fewer crimes by junkies than either us or Portugal. Isn't that what we want?

Sorry to hear about your mugging. How will Portugal's approach stop these junkies being caught in a circle of drug abuse and robbery?

[Tibbermoresaint]

4 minutes ago, renton said:

As far as I can tell from the evidence I've seen the best way of lowering a large frequency of crimes is to work to reduce the social factors that lead people to crime in the first place

How do you account for people who have the same social factors but don't become criminals?

[101]

3 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

I'd say Singapore's approach works. They have fewer junkies and fewer crimes by junkies than either us or Portugal. Isn't that what we want?

Best way to reduce drug related crime is to remove all police officers then the crime rate would be 0. England are trying that and politicians down south seem very happy with crime rates falling despite it being obvious the fewer police officers you have the lower your crime rate would go naturally. For crime to actually go down you need similar or more police officers for the stats to mean anything.

I think very tough sentences can work in some countries however it clearly doesn't work in Scotland. Also if you have taken something but don't want to call an ambulance for fear of arrest due to strict anti drug law then the state has failed that person and not something I would like to see happen here.

[Tibbermoresaint]

2 minutes ago, Adam101 said:

Also if you have taken something but don't want to call an ambulance for fear of arrest due to strict anti drug law then the state has failed that person and not something I would like to see happen here.

I'd say that person has failed himself.

Edited July 17, 2019 by Tibbermoresaint
Clarity

[101]

Just now, Tibbermoresaint said:

I'd say you've failed yourself.

You don't understand that peer pressure can play a huge part in very young people taking illegal substances? 

The state should be there for everyone regardless of the place they are.

[The Moonster]

12 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

I'd say Singapore's approach works. They have fewer junkies and fewer crimes by junkies than either us or Portugal. Isn't that what we want?

Sorry to hear about your mugging. How will Portugal's approach stop these junkies being caught in a circle of drug abuse and robbery?

Culturally though I imagine Singapore didn't have the huge drug problem we or Portugal do. I can't say much more as I don't know much specifically about Singapore's issues. They may well have always had a lower number of drug users.

That's the whole aim of their policy. The aim of our policy is to incarcerate and release once time is served.

 

[renton]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I agree with your assessment about tibbermore. That is exactly what is driving him IMO.

In your first paragraph you highlight a problem which I think needs sorting - we are so busy talking about how to fix crime, we tend not to talk about the victim. That leaves victims and wider society feeling that nobody is interested enough in their plight. Something needs to be done here and not just for people to make throw away comments about "our thoughts are with the victims".

In your second paragraph, the argument is not necessarily about whether life imprisonment or 20 years in jail for theft "solves theft" because where one scumbag emerges, another b*****d will be right behind him. The argument is whether life imprisonment for repeated theft or suchlike stops THAT specific criminal committing more crime. The obvious answer to that is Yes. The question then is whether we want to absorb the financial consequences of that. Why can't we permanently remove career criminals from society AND do all the other things you talk about?

Well in this instance we get into the realms of can't be rehabilitated. Some people won't be. The best we can do is remove them from society to protect society. However, I do think there are vast tracts of petty crime, drug related crime and the like where a greater focus on rehabilitation would be key in preventing recidivism, allowing us to save money on locking people up repeatedly and potentially cutting off the route towards more career criminality for some (not all) . Note that this is framed entirely in terms of trying to lower crime rate rather than any focus on the rights of the criminal to a better life. It's simply that - as I've said before - enlightened self interest probably requires that we try and pull as many people up and out of their circumstances that lead to crime as the best way of keeping overall crime rates down.

[Tibbermoresaint]

3 minutes ago, Adam101 said:

You don't understand that peer pressure can play a huge part in very young people taking illegal substances? 

The state should be there for everyone regardless of the place they are.

I entirely understand that. I also understand personal responsibility.

[Tibbermoresaint]

3 minutes ago, The Moonster said:

Culturally though I imagine Singapore didn't have the huge drug problem we or Portugal do. I can't say much more as I don't know much specifically about Singapore's issues. They may well have always had a lower number of drug users.

That's the whole aim of their policy. The aim of our policy is to incarcerate and release once time is served.

 

The issue isn't the past, it's what's the best policy for the future.

[J_Stewart]

2 hours ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Why do you obsess about the perpetrators of crime and not the victims? You're clearly intelligent but woefully misguided.

Addiction isn't a health issue. It's a choice.

 

2 hours ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

If it wasn't a choice we'd all be addicts. Or none of us would be.

I've posted on this forum for a good number of years now, and these are, without question, two of the top five stupidest posts I've seen on here, or any other part of the internet. Quite an achievement.

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, J_Stewart said:

 

I've posted on this forum for a good number of years now, and these are, without question, two of the top five stupidest posts I've seen on here, or any other part of the internet. Quite an achievement.

Bless.

[The Moonster]

1 minute ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

The issue isn't the past, it's what's the best policy for the future.

We'll end this here.

[Tibbermoresaint]

Just now, The Moonster said:

We'll end this here.

Perhaps you could answer my question about your muggers first.

[The Moonster]

2 minutes ago, Tibbermoresaint said:

Perhaps you could answer my question about your muggers first.

Well in Portugal they could impose imprisonment of up to 5 years for theft. They would also send them on drug addiction programmes which by law they need to complete. If they complete that then go out and re-use/re-offend then they go to jail. If you bothered to look at any of the studies I was talking about this would be explained much better for you though.

[ayrmad]

2 minutes ago, Stinky Bone said:

I previously commented about a family member that died from a drug overdose.  He never once mugged or assaulted anyone to get money to feed his habit, he stole from family and broke into business properties.  

As for addiction being a choice.  I think originally he had a choice and he made a bad decision, but at that point he was not an addict.  His continued use led him to become one until he was in such a situation that he was physically dependent and had no choice.  I know he wanted to beat it and that is why he was at rehab twice, on both occasions leaving the centre drug and alcohol free.  

The first time he came out of rehab, he was back on the gear within a couple of months.  The second time it was only a matter of weeks.  

I think he deliberately overdosed his last hit.  I think he realised that rehab was not a miracle cure and even though he was clean he would be fighting his addiction for the rest of his life.  He decided he couldn't handle that so took a big hit.  Night night. 

You've no way of knowing that.

[54_and_counting]

4 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

You've no way of knowing that.

Could also argue that breaking into business properties is in a way mugging someone, especially if its a small, independent or family run business

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I'd say that person has failed himself.

Aye nae bother mate. You realise that people who turn to strong drugs like smack and getting out their nut on valium or that etizolam aren’t doing it because their life is wonderful. Quite often these folks have been getting abused from a young age, told they were stupid at school and written off in their tweens, neglected by drug addict parents etc. Thats not a choice thats people being let down by society. You go through half what these people have and tell me its a fucking choice. Wee lassies out hooring on the street desperate for a fix aren’t making a choice they’re ill and are self medicating severe mental trauma.
Attitudes like yours being prevalent are exactly why we are in the mess we are in. Yes people commit crime to feed drug habits, yes some become numb to it and do horrific things but ffs consider what’s happened to them before you write shite like that.