Shetland's broken society.

[Ghostrider]

^^ I did say generally only print those who are guilty, by the time something has gotten past the Police and Fiscal, its only a small percentage of those that walk free, and they'll only print any of those that come with a "newsworthy" story attached.

 

The media only print a very small percentage of those who end up being found guilty in Shetland anyway, just check the court list any given week, and then the media outlets after the court date. Long gone are the days when there was only the ST and everyone who was in court got their name and address in the next paper, and there were no fixed penalties then either, everything hit the court.

 

The court system and media have gone a long way already towards doing what you're advocating, probably by accident. Fixed penalties have taken out a large slice of court appearances, and the media only picking up on those cases that they think will sell news has cut the numbers even further.

 

Assuming you're right, to me it beggars belief that prisons are obliged to protect inmates identities. They've been through the public court, been found guilty and sentenced, everyone who wante dto know, already does. What can it possibly achieve to deny their existence thereafter.

 

Naming those charged and cited to appear is IMHO justified, so that any member of the public with an interest to see that justice is done in any particular case can know when they need to be there to see it happen. If a court list isn't published ahead of time, how can they know otherwise? Any other method would be far more expensive for the taxpayer (why should they have to pay extra for someone else's antics?) and be far more unreliable.

 

In a place like Shetland its all academic anyway, as if you haven't already heard by accident on the jungle drums who's been charged with whatever this week, asking around will have you that info pretty quickly.

 

As for detrimental effect on others at the same address or relatives of someone whose been in court, or due in court. Yes, maybe on kids at school its a bit rough, kids will be kids and there's always someone ready to pick on someone else. Its not an easy one to deal with, as even if everything was kept secret, enough word would have gotten out that enough kids would have been told by their parents anyway. Schools by their nature should IMHO be expected to be watchful for such things though, and nip them in the bud. It could also be said though, that the real fault lies with the person in court, insofar as if they'd been considering the fall out on kids around them, they might have acted differently and the need to appear in court wouldn't have arisen.

 

I don't think though in this day and age many adults are much bothered about the people at the same address or relatives of someone appearing in court, as far as I can see gone or the days when such things were liberally laced with shame and stigma. I don't doubt that it still happens sometimes in certain circumstances, but its the exception rather than the rule it was say 30-40 years ago and earlier.

[EM]

... as quoted by the mostly -ve. As ever, detracting from the thread.

Dood detraction, petty mind, and not quite on topic.

I have a feeling that somewhere in there you are making disparaging allegations in my direction, but, as you insist on using your peculiar "stream of consciousness" approach to communication, I am sore pressed to actually decipher your precise meaning. Any chance of a translation for those of us who are not telepathic?

[shetlandpeat]

I understand the need to be open about who is appearing in court, but a name will do. There seems to be a need to publish an address at all times. We are innocent until proven guilty. The press can influence folks views. The young lady and the drug bust is one example. By reporting it in the paper could lead folk to think she is fully guilty. Some folk take the papers as a true representation. As the courts already publish appearances there is no need to change that.

It used to be a deterrent at one time, boy, we did not want to be caught doing anything or our name and address would appear in the paper, embarrassing our kin and being talked about. It seems now it is not. Folk will take the chance or try harder not to be caught.

 

In a serious charge this could lead to hate mail and/or persecution at the address.

 

Worries me a little, even more so when everything that happens that is bad it is automatically an addict of some description. I wonder if there has been any admissions of quick off the keyboard posting yet.

No doubt, there will be a detraction somewhere. I will make it easy Oranges are chocolate colour and are square.

[paulb]

Crime, persistent offenders and drugs: breaking the circle

A Cumberland Lodge Conference

6 – 8th June 2003

 

Bullet point summary

 

Statistics

 

• 50 percent of 16 – 29 year olds have tried illicit drugs, however only one percent of 16-29 year olds reported using heroin in the last year.

 

• 95 percent of drug use is recreational, five percent is problem.

 

• There are few links between recreational users (about 4 million people in the UK) of drugs and crime, but quite close links between problem drug users (250 000 people) and crime.

 

• A small number of addicts are responsible for a huge number of crimes - around 664 addicts committed 70,000 offences over a three-month period.

 

• Problem users spend about £333 per week on their addiction.

 

• 50 percent all crimes are drug-related.

 

• 74 percent of those arrested for theft test positive for cocaine and/or heroin.

 

• 75 percent of persistent offenders misuse drugs.

 

• 7.5 million crimes each year are committed by drug users.

 

• 55 percent of drug users who are criminally involved practise shoplifting as a way of financing their dependency; this is the most common type of crime committed by drug users.

 

• The estimated social and economic cost of drug abuse in terms of crime, absenteeism and sickness is estimated to be about £18 billion a year.

 

• The profile of the typical persistent offender is: male (83 percent), 18 – 22 (44 percent), white (89 percent) highly prolific (8-9 convictions in a year).

[shetlandpeat]

Nothing more up to date??

 

It could be interesting to balance out say, the cost of White Collar Crime against the up to date stats. As we know, whit collar crime attracts fewer custodial sentences. The GOV have promised to crack down on it.

 

Those old figures show that prison does not work. Highlighting a failure that folk seem to want more of is folly.

 

Now then, I found this...

 

(1) Any discussion of drug policy must include not only illegal drugs, but also alcohol, legal drugs and to a lesser extent prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs.

(a) Alcohol misuse, rather than the misuse of specific illegal drugs, is possibly the cause of the most harm in society today.

( Alcohol is widely recognised to be in the top five most harmful substances.

© Children affected by parents who abuse alcohol suffer more violence, and the same emotional stress and stigmatisation that affect children whose parents abuse other substances.

(d) There is a growing pattern of poly-drug use.

 

A much more recent meeting, one we have discussed here too, but in another string/thread/rope.

 

And we go on, now then policy;

 

We need to be aware that our enforcement strategies can have unintended consequences, which can sometimes create more harm than they reduce.

 

Hmm, familiar???

 

 

 

the problem is that cannabis is so hard to get hold of that a lot of my friends have gone straight on to smack

 

That sounds RUFF (dog ref there).

 

This point about unintended consequences was also made in relation to randomised drugs testing on prisoners: there is evidence that this sets up a new market for heroin because it is traceable in the urine for only 48 hours – as opposed to cannabis, which is traceable for 2 weeks.

 

The answers are there. Now folk may understand y there are so many hard drugs in prison.

 

This too has been covered

 

We need to ensure that our laws do not unfairly penalise those coerced into the drug trade, such as „drug mules‟.

 

Thanks for the link, it certainly proves that there is a problem with ALL drugs and the attitudes of some who do and once did post here may be wrong, your a star.

 

http://www.cumberlandlodge.ac.uk/Resources/Cumberland%20Lodge/Past%20Conferences%20Reports/Drugs%20and%20Harm%20Summary%20Report.pdf

[Fjool]

• 95 percent of drug use is recreational, five percent is problem.

 

• There are few links between recreational users (about 4 million people in the UK) of drugs and crime, but quite close links between problem drug users (250 000 people) and crime.

 

• The estimated social and economic cost of drug abuse in terms of crime, absenteeism and sickness is estimated to be about £18 billion a year.

The vast majority of illicit drug users (95%) are, on the whole, not a problem.

 

The remaining 5%, or 250000 need £333 per week to service their habit.

 

From a purely financial point of view:

 

Legally produced drugs via the NHS would probably cost considerably less than this. But let's say, for argument's sake, that £333 is the best we can manage.

 

250,000 x £333 = £83,250,000 per week = £4,329,000,000 per year.

 

Which is less than a quarter of the £18 billion lost to 'crime, absenteeism and sickness' under our current policies. If providing these drugs on the NHS reduces the problem by 25%, the net gain is almost £1 billion.

 

Anyway, just some idle thoughts based on paulb's statistics. There are many factors missing, of course: social impact, taxation, cost of prohibition, health costs, etc.

[shetlandpeat]

A small number of addicts are responsible for a huge number of crimes - around 664 addicts committed 70,000 offences over a three-month period.

 

Reported??

 

I wonder how many offences are committed by sales men in their cars per year.

 

I would think that there are more folk addicted to alcohol. You may be right, drunk and disorderly, exposure, threatening behavior and so on.

[JAStewart]

The vast majority of illicit drug users (95%) are, on the whole, not a problem.

 

The remaining 5%, or 250000 need £333 per week to service their habit.

 

From a purely financial point of view:

 

Legally produced drugs via the NHS would probably cost considerably less than this. But let's say, for argument's sake, that £333 is the best we can manage.

 

250,000 x £333 = £83,250,000 per week = £4,329,000,000 per year.

 

Which is less than a quarter of the £18 billion lost to 'crime, absenteeism and sickness' under our current policies. If providing these drugs on the NHS reduces the problem by 25%, the net gain is almost £1 billion.

 

Anyway, just some idle thoughts based on paulb's statistics. There are many factors missing, of course: social impact, taxation, cost of prohibition, health costs, etc.

 

The costs of illegal narcotics fluctuate so wildly it's almost impossible to accurately predict any costs. In the USA in general, a 'hardcore' user will spend $100-200 a day on heroin. Middlesborough was found to be one of the cheapest places to buy heroin in the UK, at £25 a gram.

 

Costs are probably timesed by 10 due to the risk.

[OP8S]

£25 for a gram of paracetamol, brick dust & caffiene maybe

Good profit in that. The only way the drug problem in the UK today can be tackled is if the Government take control of the situation, rather than organised crime. The MP for the Brighton area has the right idea if the article in The Guardian has been reported accurately.

[shetlandpeat]

Made rich by its share of the North Sea oil revenues pumped ashore at Sullum Voe oil depot, and trawling and fish-farming, Shetland has developed an "instant gratification culture", said Gill Hession, head of the drugs and alcohol action team.

 

"It's fun and it's vibrant because it has a lot of money and because it has this 'work hard, party hard' culture. On Shetland if someone wants something they've generally got the money to get it."

 

Story in the Gridiron...

 

Is this your broken society? Too much money? The need just to get offa your face?

 

The article sorta leans to suggesting Shetlands folk are to blame for their "Social Breakdown"

 

"Our drugs problems up here are probably linked to the ability to pay for it, as opposed to deprivation. We have very low levels of dishonesty. Muggings, assaults and robberies are virtually unheard of."

 

Where as some comments have been made about the few who are in the social system, it is those who are well out of it and well off that appear to be creating the problems. Are these the same folk who then blame those without? The report also mentioned Cocaine as a problem, this problem is increasing, a survey of baby changing rooms in public buildings, pubs, supermarkets and so on here in the North West, found 9 out of ten showed traces of Cocaine on the baby changing table.

 

Gridiron

[bug]

There is always the alternative view -

 

"Residents of Scotland's most northerly islands have the best quality of life, according to a new survey"

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-16318940

[shetlandpeat]

I read that too, good news.