Prison Inmates set to receive "cold turkey" payouts

[Earlybird]

What is your reaction to this story in the news today?

"Prisoners are poised to win undisclosed pay-outs after suing the Home Office because they were forced to stop taking drugs in jail, it was revealed. Drugs charity DrugScope said the group of six inmates and former inmates who used heroin and other opiates were on the verge of settling out of court with the Prison Service. The case - alleging the "cold turkey" withdrawal treatment they were forced to undergo amounted to assault - was scheduled to start at the High Court.

The size of the payouts under discussion has not been revealed. But the compensation levels are due to be finalised on Tuesday or Wednesday, legal sources said. High Court judge Mr Justice Langstaff gave the go-ahead in May for a full hearing of the case. It focused on six test cases chosen from a total pool of 198 claimants. When finally resolved this week, all 198 may be handed compensation by the Prison Service - with sums potentially running into tens of thousands of pounds.

Mr Justice Langstaff said in May: "All claim that their treatment was handled inappropriately and so they suffered injuries and had difficulties with their withdrawal." Barrister for the claimants Richard Hermer told the court at the time: "Many of the prisoners were receiving methadone treatment before they entered prison and were upset at the short period of treatment using opiates they encountered in jail. Imposing the short, sharp detoxification is the issue."

The prisoners were bringing the action based on trespass, because they say they did not consent to the treatment, and for alleged clinical negligence. They also claimed human rights breaches under Articles 3 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which ban discrimination, torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and Article 8, which enshrines the right to respect for private life."

Where is this published?

My gut reaction is that it is an abuse of public funds. Reminds me of how inmates sue in the US for things like cable TV and cruchy peanut butter. I mean the problem is that they were takin drugs in the first place, not the state is responsible for managing their illegal behavour.

taking drugs isnt illegal is it?

BEINg an addict require symapthy imo not condemnation

Sorry - should have credited source. It's a story from the Ananova wire service.

prison inmates don't get enough help for any health problems..especiaaly addictions and mental health issues

this is where things go so wrong

pyouts for cold turkey prisoners

its another eg of IF ANYEONE SPENT MONEY ON ANYHTING WE WOUDLNT HAVE HALF TH|E PROBS WE HAVE

"taking drugs isnt illegal is it?"

Are you serious?

buying them is
dealign them is
taking them isnt
spose posession is, btu actally being an addict isnt

Really, if I go an shoot up with heroin, that is legal???????????

i am splitting haris
ownign it is b tu injectign it isnt
if you can seprat the tow
i do think we need to see addicts as vitims fo their addictiona dDO somthign abotu it
nto marginaslise the and then make them turn to crime

hairs?
HAIRS

But, don't inmates lose the "rights" to certain freedoms when they are incarcerated? Doesn't that include the freedom to take drugs, or drink alcohol, or be at home, or walk freely down the street, etc?

Or do you think drug addiction should be treated strictly as a medical condition with a rehab sort of approach?

I agree there should be treatment for addicts. But, I don't think the state is responsible for them having taken drugs. Should they get treatment in prison? Yes, it is in everybody's interest to rehabilitate them. But, is it the state's fault that they were illegally drugged up in the first place (I say illegal because they must have purchased/posessed it before they took it)? I think not. I think the system is baeing taken for a ride by the drug addicts / (accused) criminals.

yy deffo

tis like cirminalising anorexia as hte bloke said on the radio this morning

I agree that addicts need to be TREATEd, and given support to come off the drugs and remain clean- although that actually requires them wanting to do so, of xourse, which is by no means a given.

However, getting payouts for breach of human rights? Did they not know the drugs were addictive when they started taking them then? Being in a position where you cannot obtainn drugs is, imo, a reasonable possibility of making the decision to start an addiction (any addiction, smoking and drinking included)

oftent he y od before they attend court

Well- they shouldn't.

I know I'm normally totally liberal and I am happy to do whatever is required to help these p[eople, but there is surely a lucid moment when someone first decides to take drugs? (particualrly class A drugs) Or doesn't , as the case may be?

I thought there were more drugs available inside prison than outside?

This compensation is sheer madness and an insult to every law abiding person, especially any victims of their crimes.

Drug addiction might be an illness but it is a chosen illness. There is a point where that person chooses to take the drugs. Methadone does work and is taking valuable resources away from areas where the money should be spent. Can you tell I have absolutely no sympathy for druggies?

They also chose to commit crime. And surely as they were then sent to jail for the crime this is them profitting from the crime? So the money should then be seized and given to victims of crime.

That would be too sensible though.

I know that drug addiction is difficult to deal with, but I disagree with these compensation claims.

absolutely outrageous that they should be compensated for having gone 'cold turkey'

Hmmm, worries me. Our Trust (NHS) has gone smoke free and thus patients are only allowed to smoke every two hours whilst the smoking room is opened. We all had issues with this as they are sectioned under the mental health act and are not willing participants of the new regime. They have not been offered any nicotine replacements. I actually think they have more grounds for appeal than illicit substance users (and for info, I don't smoke).

My brother was an addict for 8 yrs and since he has been clean he has freely admittedf that he milked everyone who ever showed him any pity and would probably have benefitted from a harder approach.I feel it is an abuse of public funds and going through detox in a harsh way is a deterrent for some My brother tried all the different ways to stop and eventually went to Ireland and just went through hell on his own hE HAS BEEN CLEAN NOW 8+YRS.

Well done to your brother. It really is tough.

agree with TIBS - isn't it illegal to profit from crime, so if they're in prison for committing a crime & the problem is caused by their being in prison they should not be paid compensation.

fair enough to treat the addiction but this is taking the piss- I'll just get back to my copy of the daily mail.{smile]

heard a very interesting programme with Monty Don on radio 4 about rehabilitating drug users
here

Thing is, withdrawel from heroin isnt fatal, not pleasant but it wont seriously harm you. As far as I was aware reading this, they folloiwng the detox programme that addicts on the outside would receive. The main differance being is that those on the outside are usually 'choosing' to quit, rather than those in proson who have little choice (and rightly so).

If this was regarding alcohol addiction, there can be very serious complications and stopping drinking abruptly can be fatal.

It did annoy me when a prisonel was saying that if he hadnt been given methodone when coming off heroin he would of died.. utter bollox.