Leading article: Irresponsible behaviour

Monday 13 November 2006 20:00 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Get ready for the outcry. Six heroin-addicted prisoners are poised to receive compensation from the Home Office in an out-of-court settlement. The men, who were on methadone before they began their sentences, were put on detoxification programmes once in prison that quickly and sharply lowered their supplies of the heroin substitute. Their lawyers claim this, in effect, forced their clients into "cold turkey", amounting to clinical negligence and a breach of human rights legislation by the prison authorities.

The level of compensation has yet to be decided, but already there are complaints that paying compensation to criminals is wrong under any circumstances. Others say the very existence of drug treatment programmes inside proves our jails are too "soft". The opponents of The Human Rights Act are in loud voice too. The Conservative Home Affairs spokesman, David Davis, suggests the Government capitulated because it did not want to be embarrassed by losing the case under legislation it introduced itself.

There is a case for arguing that the High Court should have been permitted to reach a verdict, allowing the full airing of all the arguments. The outcome is, nevertheless, welcome. This was a breach of guidelines by prison officers as the inmates did not consent to the treatment. The case for clinical negligence is strong too. "Cold turkey" is notoriously likely to result in a relapse. Moreover, prisoners enjoy the same rights to a proper standard of medical treatment - including for drug addiction - as any other patient. In this case, they did not get it.

This will prove a costly blunder. Almost 200 further inmates are understood to have lodged similar claims. But the real scandal here is less the treatment of these particular individuals, than the continued absence of a well-funded drug detoxification programme in our prisons. This problem would not have arisen had one been in place. The Government pledged £28m in funding for a treatment programme for inmates in 2006. But only £12m has been delivered this year.

This shortfall is irresponsible. Roughly half of all prisoners are on drugs. Most repeatedly end up in jail because they steal to finance their addiction. All the evidence suggests that giving criminals proper drug treatment in jail would lead to lower reoffending rates. If our political leaders were less interested in winning cheap plaudits and more interested in reducing crime, they would devote their fullest attention to the matter of drug treatment in our prisons. Instead, the depressing truth is that most seem determined to persist with a discredited and failing approach.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in