|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I need a bed for the night, so I'll commit a crime
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Here's the story.
OK, so he could possibly have obtained help from the welfare system. I don't know how tough the system is in the USA, but this story raises an interesting point about human rights, which has been touched on on the "Life in prison at hard labour" thread.
If prisoners have a right to food and shelter, then presumably the same right should be accorded to all people, quite irrespective of whether they work for it or not (given that prisoners - at least in the UK - do not work for their board and lodging).
If human rights mean anything at all, then poverty must be an infringement of a person's human rights. Of course, the retort will be: "Ah yes, but what about responsibility?" To which I would reply: "Yes, of course. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So why do incarcerated criminals - the most irresponsible of people - have rights then?"
It seems that the Lance Brown case (and there have been others - here's another one) highlights a serious paradox at the heart of western society: prisoners have more rights than the homeless and the hungry.
Yes, I realise that Lance Brown had a criminal history, but his plight could apply to a law abiding poor person. It seems to me that the "honest poor" are the most persecuted of all people. They seem to have almost no rights at all.
How can human rights law apply to the poorest of the poor? Can it be used in such a way as to outlaw poverty (or at least involuntary poverty; "voluntary poverty" being defined as the state bending over backwards to help someone and this help being persistently refused or abused)? If it can't, then is such legislation fit for purpose?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411
|
Posted
I'd hope so. I'm not sure how you can do it practically, there'd be a lot of fine lines and difficult issues, especially from roots up.
I'd have thought hostels/b&b's with extra security and good design with some way to quickly 'work' your stay if you can't pay the cheap fees would be a start, but you need to get the ethics right or you just get workhouses or other abuse again.
But too often the issue would be resolved by making being poor 'criminals'. Akin to moving the beggars from the '36 (and other) games. Or indeed the workhouses.
[edited to remove wasteful quote] Also it's not politically in.
[ 21. July 2012, 15:46: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
There are some charities that do sterling work, like St Petroc's locally. However, point is they ARE charities - and woefully under-resourced. They do their best with what they have but properly addressing all the complications of the problems this sector of society often experiences - multiple cross-addiction, mental health issues, alienation and sheer hopelessness etc. - costs a helluva lot which is why sometimes the best they can do is offer a relatively safe shelter and food.
I've known about five people who have taken the Lance Brown option - one, a legless (no pun intended although he was also a chronic alcoholic) homeless guy, would commit some crime just before Christmas in order to get "board and lodging" through the festive period.
It's an absolute disgrace and a blot on our society. Course, not-even-particularly *enlightened* self-interest should tell you that, since sentencing policy is being revised downwards in many cases these days in order to cope with prison overcrowding, desperate people will resort to even more serious offences in order to get banged up.
Another pat on the back for this evil fucking government.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This is what happens when we don't take care of our own, and set up things in such a way that treats the poor worse than criminals.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
[content edited, since it contained specific descriptions of self-harming]
I formerly worked for the provincial gov't and 30 years we had a 'continuum of care'. Today we have only 'you're on your own" and jail. Frustrating. Unethical. Terrible.
[ 22. July 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barefoot Friar
Ship's Shoeless Brother
# 13100
|
Posted
This seems relevant. I quite enjoyed the story when in lit class.
--------------------
Do your little bit of good where you are; its those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world. -- Desmond Tutu
Posts: 1621 | From: Warrior Mountains | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Somewhere on a bookshelf I have a guide to being a tourist in the U.S., written for Europeans. One piece of advice was that many small towns have a jail with no one in it, so the tourist might have a chance at free housing simply by asking. I have no idea if this worked.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Many small towns in the West do not have jails at all. At best, they may have holding cells, which consist of a chair and maybe a lou, but these cells are only to hold someone temporarily until s/he can be transported to the county jail.
So, take that off your America on the cheap list. Although you might want to contact a church in town for lodging. I have had to do that a couple of times, once during a blizzard and just recently because our son was involved in a very serious accident necessitating an extended stay in a resort area (lodging was very expensive otherwise).
Back to the OP. It is true that if a person has a severe medical problem in the US sometimes they will do a crime to get socialized medicine. We Americans don't like socialized medicine, you know ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49
We Americans don't like socialized medicine, you know
I hope that emoticon is insured!
[/ sorry. Couldn't resist. Got a bit excitable. Note to self: pls remember to take your meds which the government ... oops, your doctor ... prescribed for you.]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
The rather threadbare welfare state we have is only one part of this. The other is the disastrous deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill that started in the late 70s. Homelessness was not a widespread social problem until we gave up trying to take care of the mentally ill. I don't think it's a coincidence that our prison population started exploding at the same time, either.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If prisoners have a right to food and shelter, then presumably the same right should be accorded to all people, quite irrespective of whether they work for it or not (given that prisoners - at least in the UK - do not work for their board and lodging).
If human rights mean anything at all, then poverty must be an infringement of a person's human rights. Of course, the retort will be: "Ah yes, but what about responsibility?" To which I would reply: "Yes, of course. There is no such thing as a free lunch. So why do incarcerated criminals - the most irresponsible of people - have rights then?"
I don't see any connection with human rights here. Criminals are deliberately deprived of the ability to and therefore the responsibility for looking after themselves. Therefore the state has a duty of care towards them that it doesn't have towards other people, who are not similarly deprived.
Maybe it should have such a responsibility to all its citizens, but that is another matter entirely.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
Maybe it should have such a responsibility to all its citizens, but that is another matter entirely.
But that's exactly the point under discussion on this thread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posed by Inger
I don't see any connection with human rights here. Criminals are deliberately deprived of the ability to and therefore the responsibility for looking after themselves. Therefore the state has a duty of care towards them that it doesn't have towards other people, who are not similarly deprived.
Maybe it should have such a responsibility to all its citizens, but that is another matter entirely.
You say that "other people" are not similarly deprived. Some actually are deprived as a result of an economic system supported and encouraged by the government. Hence they lose their jobs, then their homes. Do these people not have the same right to accommodation as those who have chosen to break the law? Or some people have been deprived of their basic comfort, and have frozen to death due to the evil of high energy bills. Did these pensioners really choose to freeze to death?
How many prisoners freeze to death in UK prisons?
I guess pensioners in the UK will just have to learn the art of committing serious crimes, so that they can stay alive in a nice warm cell. Lovely.
What a gloriously civilised country we live in!
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention in my last post...
quote:
Originally posted by Inger
Criminals are deliberately deprived of the ability to and therefore the responsibility for looking after themselves.
Actually prisoners can work.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention in my last post...
quote:
Originally posted by Inger
Criminals are deliberately deprived of the ability to and therefore the responsibility for looking after themselves.
Actually prisoners can work.
Actually, in the United States, we have a problem where companies are making a huge profit off of forcing prisoners to work at subminimum wage
From the link:
quote:
All told, nearly a million prisoners are now making office furniture, working in call centers, fabricating body armor, taking hotel reservations, working in slaughterhouses, or manufacturing textiles, shoes, and clothing, while getting paid somewhere between 93 cents and $4.73 per day.
This would be because we're now outsourcing our prison operations to for-profit companies who are, to all appearances, doing everything possible to ensure that they keep a 'workforce' within their walls.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Oh, and one thing I forgot to mention in my last post...
quote:
Originally posted by Inger
Criminals are deliberately deprived of the ability to and therefore the responsibility for looking after themselves.
Actually prisoners can work.
In the limited and unimaginative regimes we have, prisoners don't get much scope to perform useful work. If they have skills, they ought to be able to use them and if they don't have skills then they ought to learn some, so that when they get out, they will be in a position where they can earn a living.
btw, I don't hold with the idea that prisoners could be taking jobs away from others: if they have the skills put them on charity/third sector project work and by doing so I like to think they will be less likely to reoffend.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
@Spiffy
Well, I suppose they're paid subminimum wage because their food, board, clothing, and medical care is already paid for.
Do you have a problem with them being able to choose to work to save at least some money before they get out? One of the causes of recidivism is prisoners often get out with nothing but $50 and a bus ticket.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
In the UK, the council has a legal duty to house you, and the welfare state is supposed to ensure a guaranteed minimum income that is enough to live on. That would be how we try to guarantee these rights across society. Older people additionally get a winter fuel payment. Problem is when welfare recipients are characterised as 'scroungers' then folk become less motivated to keep welfare at liveable levels.
There is a category of folk in the UK, formally defined as chronically excluded adults. These tend to be folk with chronic drug and/or alcohol problems (probably with mental health problems after years of addiction even if they didn't have them to start with) who are extremely difficult to house. This is because staffed homes can't legally allow them to use drugs on the premises - so they lose their accommodation when they are found abusing drugs on site. And there are every few places which will take people who are still actively drinking heavily (so called "wet houses"). Plus people don't like being housed in those wet houses that are available, because they are full of addicts and alcoholics who re drinking heavily and therefore don't tend to be pleasant places to be.
None the less specialist services are funded, along with assertive outreach street teams, and assertive outreach mental health teams. So I think you should allow that the state in the UK is making a more than token effort about this.
The last vulnerable older person I know of who died of hypothermia, did so because she kept giving her money away to the drug addicts who came to her door and asked for it. Then she switched her heating off because she was running out of money. The police were in the process of trying to gather enough evidence to prosecute the people preying on her at the time of her death - despite the fact she didn't want them to and was refusing to make a statement to assist the police case.
Fact is, some people are very hard to help.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Just got back from hospitalizing a paranoid schizophrenic man with severe liver damage and probably not all that long to live. His latest episode left him jobless and (if he gets out of hospital) homeless, since his old home belonged to the person he (failed to) serve as caregiver for--who is now herself hospitalized.
I don't know what we're going to do if and when he gets released.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
In the UK, the council has a legal duty to house you...
No, they don't. Or not quite. They have a legal duty to help you find housing which isn't quite the same thing. They only have to provide housing, or arrange for someone else to, if you are in some kind of "priority need" - there is a legal definition of that which they interpret differently. If you don't count as a priority case, or have anywhere to go to at all, its just help and advice, not an actual roof over your head. And - to risk being sarcastic - if you are what once upon a time would have been called a "sturdy beggar" their help might be pretty unhelpful.
Explained in some detail at the websites of Shelter and the Citizens Advice Bureau.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
Maybe it should have such a responsibility to all its citizens, but that is another matter entirely.
But that's exactly the point under discussion on this thread.
Well, yes and no. The OP sets up a comparison between criminals and non-criminal but poor people, and argues that criminals have 'human rights' not enjoyed by the latter. In other words, there are two subjects for debate: should everyone have the human right not to be poor with all the resultant deprivation, and do criminals have human rights not enjoyed by non-criminals?
I don't know the answer to the first question, but it is a different one from the second one, to which the answer is 'no'.
[ 22. July 2012, 10:36: Message edited by: Inger ]
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posed by Inger
I don't see any connection with human rights here. Criminals are deliberately deprived of the ability to and therefore the responsibility for looking after themselves. Therefore the state has a duty of care towards them that it doesn't have towards other people, who are not similarly deprived.
Maybe it should have such a responsibility to all its citizens, but that is another matter entirely.
You say that "other people" are not similarly deprived. Some actually are deprived as a result of an economic system supported and encouraged by the government. Hence they lose their jobs, then their homes. Do these people not have the same right to accommodation as those who have chosen to break the law? Or some people have been deprived of their basic comfort, and have frozen to death due to the evil of high energy bills. Did these pensioners really choose to freeze to death?
How many prisoners freeze to death in UK prisons?
I guess pensioners in the UK will just have to learn the art of committing serious crimes, so that they can stay alive in a nice warm cell. Lovely.
What a gloriously civilised country we live in!
The whole point of prison is to deprive criminals of their freedom, which must necessarily involve taking away their ability to look after themselves. That is the essence of imprisonment. Therefore someone else has to take that responsibility, namely the state.
Unless you believe that the explicit object of our economic system is similarly to deprive poor people of the ability to look after themselves, the two cases are simply not comparable. Prisoners have fewer human rights than non-criminals, not more.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger
Unless you believe that the explicit object of our economic system is similarly to deprive poor people of the ability to look after themselves, the two cases are simply not comparable.
I guess that subtle distinction will be rather lost on those law abiding citizens whose only crime is to be victims of "market forces" and who have to witness the constant pilgrimage of criminals' lawyers to Strasbourg, while they themselves are largely forgotten.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:
This would be because we're now outsourcing our prison operations to for-profit companies who are, to all appearances, doing everything possible to ensure that they keep a 'workforce' within their walls.
Actually, this is a problem even in countries where the prison system is not fully privatised.
One of the prisons in my region keeps inmates busy making prison guard uniforms, prison bedsheets, and so on. Another makes all the mail boxes and lockers for prisons across the country.
If you think about this too long, your head will explode.
One of the earliest conversations I had with a couple of inmates, career armed robbers, involved them saying to me with a perfectly straight face: "it's a good thing we do what we do, because look at all the jobs we're creating in the prison service".
After years in the system, my conclusion is that prison is nothing more or less than a great game. (Almost) everybody (guards, inmates, social workers, chaplains, and so on) knows the rules and (almost) all of us play by the rules, (almost) all of the time. Riots happen when one or other of the teams stops playing by the rules, insane though they are.
(Another more theological take is that these absurdities are because the criminal justice system is an attempt at dealing with sin and its consequences, and sin is by definition absurd).
[ 22. July 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
For clarity, I should add that these rules are not at all the same thing as prison regulations. Knowing how much not to apply/flout prison regulations is one of the rules of the game, for all of us.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no_prophet:
[content edited, since it contained specific descriptions of self-harming]
I formerly worked for the provincial gov't and 30 years we had a 'continuum of care'. Today we have only 'you're on your own" and jail. Frustrating. Unethical. Terrible.
Just a word of explanation. Because these are public boards, we have a guideline about content which may give specific information about how to self-harm. Following some discussion on Host Board, I think it's wise to invoke that guideline re this post and edit out such a description.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
[QUOTE]The whole point of prison is to deprive criminals of their freedom, which must necessarily involve taking away their ability to look after themselves. That is the essence of imprisonment. Therefore someone else has to take that responsibility, namely the state.
Unless you believe that the explicit object of our economic system is similarly to deprive poor people of the ability to look after themselves, the two cases are simply not comparable. Prisoners have fewer human rights than non-criminals, not more.
Really? Try telling that to the guy rummaging through the dumpster trying to find something to eat. Tell that to the guy slowly dying from cancer or other disease because he has no health care. Explain to him how he is "more free" than the prisoner who has both those things. The OP itself-- and other cases of desperate people who commit crimes to get their basic needs met-- show how wrong your naive assumptions truly are.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If prisoners have a right to food and shelter, then presumably the same right should be accorded to all people, quite irrespective of whether they work for it or not (given that prisoners - at least in the UK - do not work for their board and lodging).
If human rights mean anything at all, then poverty must be an infringement of a person's human rights.
Depends on your definition of poverty. But roof, warmth, food, cleanliness, and these days a mobile phone are definitely essentials to get anywhere. And, come to think of it, healthcare.
quote:
How can human rights law apply to the poorest of the poor? Can it be used in such a way as to outlaw poverty (or at least involuntary poverty; "voluntary poverty" being defined as the state bending over backwards to help someone and this help being persistently refused or abused)? If it can't, then is such legislation fit for purpose?
You can't outlaw poverty - how would you? Throw all the poor into prison? What you can do is make it such that if anyone is absolutely poor they are so by choice. And such legislation as we have in Britain is a good start.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And such legislation as we have in Britain is a good start.
The Tories are in power. Don't blink.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
How can human rights law apply to the poorest of the poor? Can it be used in such a way as to outlaw poverty (or at least involuntary poverty; "voluntary poverty" being defined as the state bending over backwards to help someone and this help being persistently refused or abused)?
You can't outlaw poverty - how would you? Throw all the poor into prison?
And they say that it's the religious fundies who are literalists!
(Note to self: Next time use the most boring legalese, and avoid colourful words like "outlaw".)
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And such legislation as we have in Britain is a good start.
The Tories are in power. Don't blink.
There is that. It's a worse start than it was even five years ago ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
How can human rights law apply to the poorest of the poor? Can it be used in such a way as to outlaw poverty (or at least involuntary poverty; "voluntary poverty" being defined as the state bending over backwards to help someone and this help being persistently refused or abused)?
You can't outlaw poverty - how would you? Throw all the poor into prison?
And they say that it's the religious fundies who are literalists!
(Note to self: Next time use the most boring legalese, and avoid colourful words like "outlaw".)
Try 'eliminate' next time. Because when you're mixing the concept of outlawing and poverty remember that the very word 'privilege' means 'private law'. And that "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."
Talking about making it illegal to be poor is talking about an only slight extension of things that have really happened. Like arresting a homeless person in the shelter because he had a conviction for ... sleeping on the street.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Michael Moore had a similar idea: in Florida, fill up a boat with sick people who couldn't get medical care, sail to Guantanamo, and request the authorities within to treat them as well as they do "the evildoers." Of course, he received no reply, but it was all filmed and shown in Sicko.
I wish I'd had the presence of mind to apply the same insight one snowy afternoon when I was making the drive back to grad school in downstate Illinois from home in Wisconsin. After stopping for gasoline in a prissy little suburb of Chicago called Willow Brook, I was pulled over by a cop because I had made an illegal left turn out of the station to return to the interstate. Sure enough, there was a sign to that effect. It had by that time become almost as invisible as everything else. The first thing that struck my mind, of course, was how peculiar it was that even in such conditions, an officer had nothing better to do than lie in wait for unsuspecting students, who didn't notice the order to drive into the business district (and maybe stop and buy something) rather than resume their journey directly. He wanted either my driver's licence, bail, or to throw me in a jail cell. I chickened out, of course, and surrendered such cash as would preclude the possibility of getting a motel room to wait out the storm, as any sensible driver would want to do, and any benevolent gendarme encourage.
Would that I had been a little more passive-aggressive and refused him either piece of paper. "Do I understand that you're offering to put me up for the night? How kind! Tomorrow, after breakfast, I might be able to locate my driver's licence or some dollar bills."
A few responses like that might have dissuaded the city fathers from perceiving an economic benefit in their little trap.
[ 24. July 2012, 06:05: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
[QUOTE]The whole point of prison is to deprive criminals of their freedom, which must necessarily involve taking away their ability to look after themselves. That is the essence of imprisonment. Therefore someone else has to take that responsibility, namely the state.
Unless you believe that the explicit object of our economic system is similarly to deprive poor people of the ability to look after themselves, the two cases are simply not comparable. Prisoners have fewer human rights than non-criminals, not more.
Really? Try telling that to the guy rummaging through the dumpster trying to find something to eat. Tell that to the guy slowly dying from cancer or other disease because he has no health care. Explain to him how he is "more free" than the prisoner who has both those things. The OP itself-- and other cases of desperate people who commit crimes to get their basic needs met-- show how wrong your naive assumptions truly are.
I've been puzzling over your response to what was, as far as I was concerned, intended as a simple statement of legal fact; but it has finally dawned on me that it might be a pond difference. I'm not sure what the term 'human rights' means to you, but suspect it might be the rights that one would wish every citizen in a decent society to have: the right not to starve to death, not to be without shelter and most certainly to medical care, irrespective of income. For what it's worth, I believe that by and large people in the UK have those rights, in one way or another.
But that is not at all what the term 'human rights' means in the UK. Here it refers very specifically to the rights laid down in the Human Rights Act (HRA) . And they are not what one might call entitlement rights; they are rights the state undertakes not to deprive us of, like the right to liberty, the right to privacy, to respect for family life, all of which a criminal is likely to lose, but which you retain no matter how poor you are (and yes, I agree they may not mean a lot in practice if you are destitute, but in law at least you do still have them).
The trouble with the HRA is that it is very controversial in the UK. Many, especially right-wing people though not confined to them, see it as pernicious foreign bleeding-heart liberal/socialist nonsense, forced on us by the EU. Not in fact true, but many people believe it. They tend to see it as something foisted on the individual by the government, when in fact the aim is to protect people from government abuse. And one frequent assertion is that "these days, because of human rights, criminals have more rights than innocent people". This seems to me to be pretty much what the OP says, and it is what I was reacting to.
I don't know how far the HRA is like your Bill of Rights. I would assume rather similar.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Inger:
[QUOTE]The whole point of prison is to deprive criminals of their freedom, which must necessarily involve taking away their ability to look after themselves. That is the essence of imprisonment. Therefore someone else has to take that responsibility, namely the state.
Unless you believe that the explicit object of our economic system is similarly to deprive poor people of the ability to look after themselves, the two cases are simply not comparable. Prisoners have fewer human rights than non-criminals, not more.
Really? Try telling that to the guy rummaging through the dumpster trying to find something to eat. Tell that to the guy slowly dying from cancer or other disease because he has no health care. Explain to him how he is "more free" than the prisoner who has both those things. The OP itself-- and other cases of desperate people who commit crimes to get their basic needs met-- show how wrong your naive assumptions truly are.
I've been puzzling over your response to what was, as far as I was concerned, intended as a simple statement of legal fact; but it has finally dawned on me that it might be a pond difference. I'm not sure what the term 'human rights' means to you, but suspect it might be the rights that one would wish every citizen in a decent society to have: the right not to starve to death, not to be without shelter and most certainly to medical care, irrespective of income. For what it's worth, I believe that by and large people in the UK have those rights, in one way or another.
Yes, probably a cross-pond difference in definition (which is way more slippery in the US than what you're describing-- opinions here would vary widely). But note you also used the word "freedom" to suggest that a prisoner is deprived of "freedom" whereas the homeless in the OP are not. That's really what I was disputing-- the idea of "freedom" as much as "human rights". Perhaps, again, it is a cross-pond difference, but in the US large numbers of people do not have those "rights"-- the right to health care, shelter, and food. I believe that was the point of the OP (as well as my post)-- to show the incredible irony that a prisoner-- at least in the US-- does have more of those basic human "rights" than a poor but law-abiding person might. My point was that the non-incarcerated homeless person who is unable to procure food, shelter, and medical care is in many ways not really "more free" than the prisoner.
[ 25. July 2012, 04:34: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
I don't at all disagree with your latest post, Cliffdweller. But to me this is about welfare, not human rights. I'm a strong believer in the welfare state; I would gladly pay more tax to know that no-one was ever homeless or hungry.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I thought the relevant pond-difference is that in the UK medical care is available regardless of whether one has medical insurance.
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I thought the relevant pond-difference is that in the UK medical care is available regardless of whether one has medical insurance.
Yes, that I think is the point (on which Inger and I agree). I believe the OP was speaking to the US situation-- where we do indeed have folks willing to commit minor crimes in order to get health care, food, or shelter. It would be interesting to know if this happens much in the UK, where it seems those basic needs are much more accessible to the poor.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I thought the relevant pond-difference is that in the UK medical care is available regardless of whether one has medical insurance.
Yes, that I think is the point (on which Inger and I agree). I believe the OP was speaking to the US situation-- where we do indeed have folks willing to commit minor crimes in order to get health care, food, or shelter. It would be interesting to know if this happens much in the UK, where it seems those basic needs are much more accessible to the poor.
I've never heard of a case, though that doesn't mean much. Health care is certainly accessible; problems with homelessness seem more to relate to the sometimes very poor accommodation provided and the sheer uncertainty of being able to stay in one place, important if you have children. I'm here going by the literature I get from the main charity for helping the homeless, Shelter.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
AFAIK, in the US someone who shows up at the ER must be treated, whether he has insurance or not.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK, in the US someone who shows up at the ER must be treated, whether he has insurance or not.
Moo
Yes, but that's not the same as health care-- it's emergency care in an emergency. You can't get routine preventative care in the ER. You can't get care for ongoing degenerative illnesses. You can't get chemo if you have cancer. Which is why we have people desperate enough to commit a crime in order to get access to health care.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK, in the US someone who shows up at the ER must be treated, whether he has insurance or not.
Moo
I've experienced the reality that the quality of treatment one receives in the ER may depend on having insurance or a lot of money. I got dumped out of one ER while still in need of care. Fortunately, another hospital wasn't quite so concerned about money and did what was needed: admission as an inpatient and proper treatment. I've also seen news items of hospitals literally dumping patients still in hospital gowns on the street - one was a paraplegic dumped without his wheelchair. One wonders if the hospital kept it as payment...
ETA: I now have insurance and thank my lucky stars. Due to my past experience of having no coverage I'm all for universal health care. No one should be denied quality care.
[ 28. July 2012, 01:31: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
AFAIK, in the US someone who shows up at the ER must be treated, whether he has insurance or not.
Moo
Yes, but that's not the same as health care-- it's emergency care in an emergency.
And all they have to do for you is ensure that you're not about to die. My stepdaughter had been to the emergency room more than once in extreme abdominal pain. It was determined to be a gall bladder attack. She wasn't going to die from it, so they sent her home. When Obamacare allowed her to be put back on her mother's insurance, she got a thorough evauation, in which it was determined that her gall bladder was full of grit and stones, and the only way to prevent recurrent problems was to remove it.
So she had it removed. But without insurance, she'd still be going to the ER periodically, and they'd do the MRI or CT scan or whatever to determine that she wasn't about to die, and send her home.
The ER is an expensive way to provide medical care, and it's not much good for the patient, either.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
The other reason to change the current state of "health care" in the U.S. where care can be sought in ERs by those without insurance or money is that it is the most expensive care on the planet and the hospitals end up eating most of the expense - which raises the premiums for anyone else who does have insurance. Make sense to leave it this way to you, cause it doesn't to me.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
It's the most expensive way to treat illness, it's also the least effective. If you have to wait until your condition has worsened to the point that you are on the verge of death-- what is needed to be admitted to the ER-- the odds of a successful and complete recovery are greatly reduced. Diagnosing and treating disease early is both cost-effective and beneficial in terms of the health outcomes.
All of which, again, goes to the OP and why some Americans may be willing to commit crimes to get their basic needs met. If we're able to hold off the GOP steamroller and keep Obamacare in place (a big if), the dynamic on health care will change, thank God. But you'll still have the matter of food and shelter.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
