View Full Version : Vote neutral expedients that just do not work

2nd Oct 2008, 18:32
I listened to a dispiriting item on radio 4 this morning that to cut a long story short, postulated the latest view that drug rehab programs in the UK produce a 96.7% recidivism rate, or 2 an a half clean druggies in every hundred.

Turns out as well that if you burgle, rape, steal cars or otherwise commit larceny, you have a 70% plus chance of being back inside within two years of geting out.

So it seems drug rehab doesn't work & surprise surprise, prison doesn't either. Now notwithstanding the health & safety & human rights culture, why can't we fix these things?

There's no votes in prisons they say, but credit the electorate with it's gumption, I would bet the chattering classes would buy into a vision of not having their holiday home turned over twice a year or their car stereo nicked for a wrap or two.

I wonder why we can't move away from the populist more prisons argument toward real solutions that work - surely even the dimmest bulb would countenance less taxation for penal facilities if real rehabilitation could be achieved - what's good for the goose etc.

I don't have the answers by any means, but to me this one seems obvious.

Standard Noise
2nd Oct 2008, 18:50
you have a 70% + chance of being back inside within two years of getting out.
So what you're saying is that they aren't getting locked up for long enough.;)
Seriously though, they love being inside because it's too soft. I watched one of those fly on the wall cop shows a while back and they lifted a bloke who lied about having a driving licence. When he was sitting in the back of the panda car he said 'I don't mind going back inside, it's a cushy number.'
If the lags think it's cushy, then of course it won't work.

2nd Oct 2008, 19:30
George Soros proposed that drugs should be legalized and made available to any one with a doctors prescription and supplying them at cost price thus removing the financial need of the user. Destroys the whole illegal drug industry for less than the amount we pay fighting it and reduces the load on the prison system.

A few years back I would have scorned such an idea but it does seem to make sense. Criminalizing the problem certainly hasn't helped.

2nd Oct 2008, 19:39
If so, it's probably the only thing in the world I'd agree on with Mr. Soros.

People should be allowed to screw up their lives. That's freedom.

The caveat, though, should be that after you have screwed up your life, don't expect the state or anyone else to come to your aid, or to the aid of your children, as you have screwed up their lives, too. They will ultimately have to make their own way in the world, wiser from their observance of you.

Rot in the gutter with your self-induced hell, or cope with it if you can handle it, but it is your problem and yours alone.

2nd Oct 2008, 19:51
Destroys the whole illegal drug industry ...which is why it'll never happen - because too many very powerful people, who have a lot of influence with politicians, (and some politicians themselves, I suepect), are making too much money under the current disastrous policiy to ever want to see it change.

Jimmy Macintosh
2nd Oct 2008, 20:05
I posted in an earlier thread about this, the biggest problem is that prison isn't feared. Why should it be? For the most part it improves some peoples situations except that they can't go out.
Frank Abingale having experienced French prison back in th 60's has a complete and utter fear of ever going back there. When in France he won't even speed on the motorway in case there is the remostest chance he could end up back in prison.
That is what needs to happen. The fear, whether they feel the need to make sure they're not caught or whether they won't commit another crime because of what they may face. Either way they know prison is a place they are not going to.

Either that or just find an uninhabited little island very north in the northern hemisphere and dump them there.

2nd Oct 2008, 20:12
I heard part of that broadcast as well ... but took a slightly different message away :eek:

The bit I heard was discussing the different programs of weaning off and their effectiveness.

The line was that the methadone substitute was being claimed to have little long term effect and really did nothing much to help wean away from the dependency.

This was compared with those schemes (mainly residential I think) which actually got the druggies off both the drugs and the substitutes.

I think they used two area in Sunderland/Tyneside (??) to demonstrate. One area was more succesfull in getting them off the drugs while the other used free and frequent methadone supply to "keep a lid" on the problem.

The point was made that the more succesfull method was not used by one area as they wanted to ensure they met all govt. targets and looked good on those measures.

Apparently the way the thing is measured means to look good it's best to dish out the methadone and don't ask too many questions or do anything else.

John Humpries was getting stuck in but then it reached the end of the time slot.

2nd Oct 2008, 20:26
Yes, Wiley, exactly Soros' point. It costs more to fight it than to supply it. There is too much money and power on both sides of the law to let that happen.

Apparently the Jamaicans had a song about how soft prison was(is) in the UK and encouraging immigration for this purpose.

Shame I had to have a tooth out this morning and missed the show.

Mac the Knife
3rd Oct 2008, 01:18
"......96.7% recidivism rate, or 2 an a half clean druggies in every hundred."

Unfortunately that is about par for the course with any established addiction, including alcoholics.