No free health care for criminals

SLUSK

Why should criminals who hurt themselves during a crime have access to free or subsidized health care?

If I was drunk and smashed a car into a wall and destroyed it I would not get any money from my insurance company so why should criminals who hurt themselves during a robbery get free or subsidized health care?

Instant Karma

Because it would be uncivilized to leave someone who cannot afford healthcare in pain?

Not really sure what response you're after with this in fairness.

SLUSK

Instant Karma wrote: »

Because it would be uncivilized to leave someone who cannot afford healthcare in pain?

Not really sure what response you're after with this in fairness.

Why would this be uncivilized?

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

Why would this be uncivilized?

I think a better question is how would it be Civilized.

rovert

Sounds like a right wing radio show phone in topic.

In the case you are talking about wouldnt the answer be so that the criminal can be brought to justice in a court over a doctor playing judge/god?

Overheal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It comes down to the concept of Innocent, until proven otherwise.

Trampas

If you are stuck in A&E and waiting to be seen to and people like what the OP is talking about keep coming in and jumping over you.

You will say the same.

SLUSK

So not only does a person get robbed, to add insult to injury his tax money will be used to treat this criminal?

When the criminal has been treated and found guilty he should get the bill and if he does not pay it, it should be illegal to give this criminal more tax subsidized health care.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

So not only does a person get robbed, to add insult to injury his tax money will be used to treat this criminal?

When the criminal has been treated and found guilty he should get the bill and if he does not pay it, it should be illegal to give this criminal more tax subsidized health care.

Rawr! And prisoners should pay for their own incarceration! But they dont and youll be hard pressed to find a System where that is the case. They get free healthcare to face their accuser, which is protected under their right to due process. Theyre given free healthcare so they will live out their sentence. You want to put a guy in for 30 years and not give him healthcare? He wont make it 10. That would not be the sentence he was given. The victim in this case has every right to expect that the criminal lives out the sentence to pay for his crime. Having them die off from Dysentery is little comfort. Nor is breeding Disease in the best interest of our Prison System Employees.

tricky D

Overheal wrote: »

Rawr! And prisoners should pay for their own incarceration!

At €2000 a week, they're gonna have to do a helluva lot more robbing and moving gear.

Anyway, it's that €2000 which is the big worry when compared to health costs. Nevermind the huge costs of going throught the whole court processes.

CokaColumbo

Our justice system is centred on rehabilitation, not vengeance, right?
Just because somebody has committed a crime, it doesn't mean that they are any less of a person and less in need of the most basic necessities in life.

The question is a little absurd in my opinion. Say you defrauded a multinational insurance company out of E5,000, were then charged and sentenced to 3 years for the offence; and you also have a severe, chronic illness. Are you telling me that for those 3 years, if you don't have private health insurance, you should be allowed to potentially die because you stole some money?

We live in a civilised nation so that stuff doesn't happen.

dan_d

Too many grey areas, too hard to administer and you can't have one rule for everyone and a different rule for everyone else.
Might be worth looking into charging those who fall into A&E on weekends drunk out of their minds though.Prior to leaving said A&E.

Red_Marauder

There is a courts service in place to hand out justice and decide upon the issues of guilt and reparations. It isn't the responsibility of an A&E night nurse. That's why.

SLUSK

It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.

irish_bob

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Our justice system is centred on rehabilitation, not vengeance, right?
Just because somebody has committed a crime, it doesn't mean that they are any less than of a person and less in need of the most basic necessities in life.

The question is a little absurd in my opinion. Say you defrauded a multinational insurance company out of E5,000, were then charged and sentenced to 3 years for the offence; and you also have a severe, chronic illness. Are you telling me that for those 3 years, if you don't have private health insurance, you should be allowed to potentially die because you stole some money?

We live in a civilised nation so that stuff doesn't happen.

if someone robbed and bruttally beat an elderly person living on thier own , they are most certainly less of a person in my eyes

Breezer

SLUSK wrote: »

If I was drunk and smashed a car into a wall and destroyed it I would not get any money from my insurance company so why should criminals who hurt themselves during a robbery get free or subsidized health care?

Because healthcare and money to replace a car are two very different things. One is a basic human right. The other is a luxury.

Besides, even if you only look at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, if an accused person was suffering an illness or injury prior to a trial then it is likely that at least some of them could be declared unfit to stand trial. This would waste court time and would cost money.

Can I ask why this concerns you so much? Is it due to a personal experience? Or do you believe this is the reason the health service is in a mess?

SLUSK

Breezer wrote: »

Because healthcare and money to replace a car are two very different things. One is a basic human right. The other is a luxury.

Besides, even if you only look at it from a purely pragmatic point of view, if an accused person was suffering an illness or injury prior to a trial then it is likely that at least some of them could be declared unfit to stand trial. This would waste court time and would cost money.

Can I ask why this concerns you so much? Is it due to a personal experience? Or do you believe this is the reason the health service is in a mess?

I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice and common sense.

walrusgumble

SLUSK wrote: »

It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.

Is that you Paul McWilliams?:p

I don't think it would be part of a doctor or nurse's professional ethics to refuse to threat an injuried person who enters A & E (well, so long as they are not acting anti social)

As you know, if anyone has the power, it would be government. It's interesting, though, to note, three years ago or so, one of the Sunday papers, I am not sure which, ran a story / investigation into politicans, including the Taoiseach at the time, Bertie Ahern, who canvassed to prison governors on behalf of families of prisoners from their patch or provided character references for the courts. Double standads?

walrusgumble

SLUSK wrote: »

I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice and common sense.

You will be delighted then to see Fine Gael in power then I take it.

Breezer

SLUSK wrote: »

I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice and common sense.

So do I. I fail to see any justice or common sense in denying people, any people, healthcare. I see the opposite. While I respect your right to your opinion, I think you'll find more people agree with mine.

walrusgrumble wrote:

I don't think it would be part of a doctor or nurse's professional ethics to refuse to threat an injuried person who enters A & E (well, so long as they are not acting anti social)

It wouldn't. They could, and should, be struck off.

walrusgrumble wrote:

You will be delighted then to see Fine Gael in power then I take it.

Please explain this comment.

Lockstep

SLUSK wrote: »

It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.

http://www.capitolnps.com/images/img-head-desk.jpg


Lawd....
It's already been explained numerous times on this thread; because criminals are entitled to a minimal degree of care (food, water, healthcare, shelter). Like it or not, we're a civilised nation and we can't deny things as basic as healthcare to anyone, short of letting the State decide who can/can't live within it's care.

Bonus points for resorting to mud slinging "ROW ROW LEFTISTS ROW ROW"

CokaColumbo

irish_bob wrote: »

if someone robbed and bruttally beat an elderly person living on thier own , they are most certainly less of a person in my eyes

Just because a small number of individuals happen to be devoid of human decency, that doesn't give us a right to act the same way.
What separates us from the dregs of society is that when wronged, we are able to maintain our humanity.

One wrong-doing in exchange for another never did anybody any favours.

irish_bob

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Just because a small number of individuals happen to be devoid of human decency, that doesn't give us a right to act the same way.
What separates us from the dregs of society is that when wronged, we are able to maintain our humanity.

One wrong-doing in exchange for another never did anybody any favours.

not what i said , i said someone who commits an act like brutally beating and then robbing an elderly person living on their own is indeed less of a person than those who dont where as you stated they were no less a person

walrusgumble

Breezer wrote: »

So do I. I fail to see any justice or common sense in denying people, any people, healthcare. I see the opposite. While I respect your right to your opinion, I think you'll find more people agree with mine.

It wouldn't. They could, and should, be struck off.

Please explain this comment.

The Fine Gael comment, is simply tongue in check and not intended to insult, more childish really (and resentment towards the posters comment of being leftist - nothing wrong with that btw). Traditionaly or historically, Fine Gael was seen to be the party of the Big farmer and Law n Order - that seemed or preceived to be two (of many) of fg voters main concern prior to Just & Social &Fitzgerald era (not that there is anything wrong with that of course)

oscarBravo

SLUSK wrote: »

I just happen to be a bit old fashioned and believe in justice...

Apart from that stupid new-fangled innocent-until-proven-guilty nonsense.

SLUSK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Apart from that stupid new-fangled innocent-until-proven-guilty nonsense.

After conviction you can slap the criminal with the hospital bill.

oscarBravo

SLUSK wrote: »

After conviction you can slap the criminal with the hospital bill.

Why not just break their legs? Hell, just shoot the bastards and have done with it.

SLUSK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why not just break their legs? Hell, just shoot the bastards and have done with it.

As I said before, if you crash you car while drunk you get 0 cents from your insurance company. That means you have to pay for the repairs yourself.

If you get hurt while robbing someone you should have to pay for the repairs of your body yourself. It does not seem unreasonable for me.

Carawaystick

SLUSK wrote: »

As I said before, if you crash you car while drunk you get 0 cents from your insurance company. That means you have to pay for the repairs yourself.

If you get hurt while robbing someone you should have to pay for the repairs of your body yourself. It does not seem unreasonable for me.

If you crashed *your* car while you were drunk and needed to be hospitalised should the ambulance people just smell your breath and say alco f' him and drive away?

Or what about a person who crossed an empty street while the red man showed and later that day got a heart attack? do we leave jaywalkers die too?

Should Brian Lenihan be denied treatment because he drank in the Dáil bar back before it had a license and so was breaking the law?

what if you rushed a labouring woman to a maternity hospital, parked on the kerb and brought her in? should her care be denied for colluding with parking on a footpath?

where do you want to draw the line?

Why stop at healthcare?
why not cut off someone's water supply if they ever broke a law?
don't educate them or their children,
change the law to prevent them using the public roads,

Breezer

walrusgumble wrote: »

The Fine Gael comment, is simply tongue in check and not intended to insult, more childish really (and resentment towards the posters comment of being leftist - nothing wrong with that btw). Traditionaly or historically, Fine Gael was seen to be the party of the Big farmer and Law n Order - that seemed or preceived to be two (of many) of fg voters main concern prior to Just & Social &Fitzgerald era (not that there is anything wrong with that of course)

Fair enough if it was tongue in cheek

It's just that while FG does believe in Law and Order (although not the 'stone the blasphemer' type), it also proposes universal healthcare. Last I'll say about the party because I don't want to derail the thread.

SLUSK wrote:

As I said before, if you crash you car while drunk you get 0 cents from your insurance company. That means you have to pay for the repairs yourself.

If you get hurt while robbing someone you should have to pay for the repairs of your body yourself. It does not seem unreasonable for me.

You have just equated the human body to a piece of metal. I'm actually lost for words; I don't know how to argue with that kind of reasoning.

S-Murph

Wouldnt such a "justice" be more like a fluke or an accident?

If criminal A robs a house and gets caught unscathed, and criminal B robs a house and gets caught, but gets a life thretening injury during the robbery - how is it justice that one person dies from their injuries while the other, who committed the same crime, gets off with a light prison sentence?

Thats not justice, thats an injustice.

Common sense.

To me, justice implies being able to control an outcome even handedly rather than relying on treatable injuries which occur during an accident determining the "justice".

Overheal

Can I ask why this concerns you so much? Is it due to a personal experience? Or do you believe this is the reason the health service is in a mess?

If I may, through the last few weeks I've discovered SLUSK is a self-claimed Anarchist. Taxation = Robbery, Voting = Validation, Policing = Fascism; etc.

Thats about right isnt it SLUSK?

SLUSK

S-Murph wrote: »

Wouldnt such a "justice" be more like a fluke or an accident?

If criminal A robs a house and gets caught unscathed, and criminal B robs a house and gets caught, but gets a life thretening injury during the robbery - how is it justice that one person dies from their injuries while the other, who committed the same crime, gets off with a light prison sentence?

Thats not justice, thats an injustice.

Common sense.

To me, justice implies being able to control an outcome even handedly rather than relying on treatable injuries which occur during an accident determining the "justice".

If someone gets shot and killed while commiting a robbery they get what they deserve. I personally feel happy when a scumbag like that dies.

SLUSK

Overheal wrote: »

If I may, through the last few weeks I've discovered SLUSK is a self-claimed Anarchist. Taxation = Robbery, Voting = Validation, Policing = Fascism; etc.

Thats about right isnt it SLUSK?

Taxation is a socially accepted form of protection racket.
Voting on political parties is like choosing if you want to get "protection" from outlaw gang 1 our outlaw gang 2.

Police seem to be more interested in harrasing homeless people instead of arresting dangerous criminals, they police officers might actually get hurt if they do this.

Lockstep

Taxes are not a protection racket, it's one of the voter's side of the social contract.

This has been done to the death here

Slugs

SLUSK wrote: »

Taxation is a socially accepted form of protection racket.
Voting on political parties is like choosing if you want to get "protection" from outlaw gang 1 our outlaw gang 2.

Police seem to be more interested in harrasing homeless people instead of arresting dangerous criminals, they police officers might actually get hurt if they do this.

LAWL! ****ING LAWL! You're ****ing on about taxation and at the end of the day, it's your taxes paying for these "criminals" to be in jail. I've heard about sitting on the fence but this nonsense is applaudable. You just can't seem to make up your mind. You're in favour of denying "criminals" their UNIVERSAL RIGHT to healthcare, yet you've an issue with paying the taxes that keep them in jail.


They're in jail because they broke Society's rules. And if they are to be punished by society, they have a right to be protected during their punishment, and that extends to healthcare. If you want to deny someone their freedom, you had best provide some of the necessities they can't provide themselves because you're preventing them.

SLUSK

I think jail sentences could probably be replaced with other punishments such as whippings, they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?

Also I think our society is morally bankrupt which rewards crime. This is what you do when you give someone free healthcare after they assaulted and robbed people.

If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.

Lockstep

SLUSK wrote: »

I think jail sentences could probably be replaced with other punishments such as whippings, they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?

As regards to whipping, I would view that as inhuman treatment, so yes, I would regard Singapore as uncivilized in relation to punishment. I know a man who had been subjected to flogging before, and by God, I wouldn not wish that on anythong.

SLUSK wrote: »

Also I think our society is morally bankrupt which rewards crime. This is what you do when you give someone free healthcare after they assaulted and robbed people.

Heh, providing medical treatment isn't "rewarding" crime. It's the State having to ensure a minimum level of care for anyone under it's care.

SLUSK wrote: »

If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.

That's what taxes are for.

Slugs

SLUSK wrote: »

I think jail sentences could probably be replaced with other punishments such as whippings, they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?

Also I think our society is morally bankrupt which rewards crime. This is what you do when you give someone free healthcare after they assaulted and robbed people.

If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.

With what money? After all, are not the MAJORITY of crimes committed with financial motivations behind them. Yes, some people can afford to pay for their own healthcare, however if someone has been in prison for over 9 years, do you honestly think they could afford to pay that accumulated fee? O.o

oscarBravo

SLUSK wrote: »

Police seem to be more interested in harrasing homeless people instead of arresting dangerous criminals, they police officers might actually get hurt if they do this.

Reality check: police officers do actually get hurt doing this.

When you replace your impressions with actual observations, it might become worthwhile debating this sort of thing with you.

Overheal

SLUSK wrote: »

If people go to jail they should also have to pay for it themselves.

So as a Private Citizen should I have to pay the Cops out of pocket to arrest someone that broke into my home?

Should I have to pay a Traffic Light Fee based on what roads I drive on?


... Are you the Flying Spaghetti Monster of Fallible Logic?

Laminations

SLUSK society pays for prisons because they are a necessity, they are where we put our 'problems' and they are supposed to be where these problems are solved through rehabilitation. Rather than denying criminals basic human rights you should be advocating better propects for rehabilitation or questioning how exactly it costs €100,000 a year to hold a prisoner and then at the end of it all when they are released the problem remains. You are seeking to enforce some degree of personal responsibility for one's own predicament but you are seeking to enforce it (imo) in the wrong area. Instead of denying healthcare, which can be seen as uncivilised, deny freedom for those prisoners who refuse to take an active role in their rehabilitation while incarcerated. Prison is not simply a sin bin.

ChocolateSauce

SLUSK wrote: »

It is good to know that you all are very concerned about the well being of violent criminals. That is typical of various sorts of leftists.

I prefer the term civilised- leftist implies some sort of economic angle which doesn't apply to everyone who thinks that you can't arbitrarily take away rights.

they whip people in Singapore and you would not consider them to be uncivilized savages would you?

I consider the act of whipping to be uncivilised savagery.

Overheal

Actually the term Cruel and Unusual springs to mind before savagery. But yes, Savagery.

SLUSK

Overheal wrote: »

Actually the term Cruel and Unusual springs to mind before savagery. But yes, Savagery.

If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.

oscarBravo

SLUSK wrote: »

If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.

If you were put up against a wall and shot for it, you definitely wouldn't do it again.

AlekSmart

If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.

A quick trawl through any single day`s court reports or a conversation with folk who work in or around the Courts themselves will rapidly reveal this HUGE problem of recidivism.

The numbers of accused persons with 20,30,40,50 and more, prior CONVICTIONS is mind-boggling.

This thread is becoming bogged down in semantics about defining savagery or cruel and unusual treatment,however it needs to be recognized that the system currently failing the Law Abiding population first......only after those failings have been addressed should we begin to worry about the proclaimed rights of the convicted persons.

The past 12 months has seen FAR too many serious cases up to Murder,whereby the convicted persons were found to have lenghty records all the way back to childhood and yet were abroad unfettered in their communities awaiting their moment to strike......and strike they did.

The upcoming release of Wicklow rapist Larry Murphy back into the community is probably the most serious example of this system once again going into disregard-the-obvious mode but who cares......:mad:

S-Murph

AlekSmart wrote: »

only after those failings have been addressed should we begin to worry about the proclaimed rights of the convicted persons.

And then you go on with highly selective cases:

The past 12 months has seen FAR too many serious cases up to Murder.

The upcoming release of Wicklow rapist Larry Murphy back into the community

Your position is not realistic. You cant 'address' the problem until you 'get real' about who we are taling about.

Most prisoners/criminals are not murderers, and most criminals are not rapists.

If people want to solve or reduce the crime problem, then tackle the real issues. Poverty, deprivation, social alienation, exclusion, inequality, lack of education and opportunity etc. These are the conditions which breed crime, and to solve the problem they must be addressed.

Emphasis on punishing the criminal is emphasis on the product of deprived social conditions, rather than the social conditions themselves.

It costs somewhere in the region of €80,000 per year to facilitate a prisoner, 70% of which in mounjoy have previous convictions. It would be far more productive to rehabilitate prisoners if the problems of crime are to be addressed.

Red_Marauder

SLUSK wrote: »

If you get whipped for burglary and assault you would probably think twice before you did it again.

I think it would see a decrease in reoffending for petty crime in the short term, and change the nature of criminal activity.

But have we not come further, as a civilised society, than to resort to reactionary public gnarlings and physically injuring a person as a form of justice?

What kind of relationship does the humiliation of beating an indiviual in defenseless circumstances serve between a criminal (and his family) and the system of justice? Would it not be completely alienating for communities leaving in areas of social deprivation?

And is it not the case that progressive steps like tackling the root causes of crime, establishing constructive garda links with the community and promoting human dignity, respect for the community and civil behaviour from an early age could be a better step to fixing our society? And couln't it all end up better for society as a whole?

I believe the carrot and stick approach works. You give people an incentive to change, and you also make them face the consequences of their failings.
Incentives like community development, integrating communities, early and aggressive participation in educational and personal development and the expansion of family welfare services have never been properly enforced.
Neither has the current 'stick' model. Meaningful sentencing, personal development in the prison system, and, a prison reform bill that turns our prisons from schools of crime to schools of virtue, these have also never been attempted.
I suggest we switch to these methods before we simply start whipping people - which has, in fact, already been tested.

SLUSK

As I said before, I do not think it is wrong of a homeowner to shot a burglar in the head. That is justice.

oscarBravo

SLUSK wrote: »

As I said before, I do not think it is wrong of a homeowner to shot a burglar in the head. That is justice.

Ah. I have to re-think my impression of your approach to jurisprudence. I thought you wanted to replace "innocent until proven guilty" with "guilty until proven innocent". Now I see you just want to replace it with "guilty". (Or, better yet, "dead".)