28 July 2011

Needles in the prison up for public comment

28 July 2011 | johnboy

Chief Minister Katy Gallagher has announced the release of Michael Moore’s report: ‘Balancing Access
and Safety: Meeting the challenge of blood borne viruses in prison’.

The report recommends:

ACT Corrections Management Act 2007

2. A clear set of rules, procedures and protocols be established through an appropriate process guided by the ACT Corrections Management Act.

3. Adopt a contingency process for the implementation of appropriate model/s for a needle and syringe program at the AMC.

4. Recruitment of a dedicated Aboriginal Health Worker position in an NSP and related service provision would be worthy of consideration.

5. The installation of secure syringe disposal bins would further reduce the potential for accidental needle-stick injury and be worthy of consideration even without the implementation of an NSP.

6. Future developments in retractable syringe technology will need to be considered as part of the ongoing development of an NSP in custodial settings.

7. Legislative amendments be considered to protect all staff from potential civil and criminal liability.

“The Government engaged Michael Moore to investigate and report on models for the implementation of an NSP at the Alexander Maconochie Centre (AMC) and the project included an assessment of the barriers to implementation with a broad range of consultations held with key stakeholders,” Ms Gallagher said.

The report has made seven (7) recommendations and the Government will now consider the recommendations, and seek the views of the community about the report, prior to finalising our response to report.

“The Government will welcome feedback from stakeholders to assist us with our final consideration of this very important issue. It’s important for anyone interested to provide their feedback on the report to the government over the next six week period.”

The consultation closes on 8 September and submissions can be made to AODpolicy@act.gov.au .

UPDATE: The Greens have announced their approval.

[photo by Crash Test Addict CC BY]

Join the conversation

136

All Comments

All Comments
Website Comments
Facebook Comments

LatestOldest

fgzk10:08 am 02 Aug 11

Sounds like more ass. Your “Asscenario” misses the point that needles are already available to prisoners. He/she is just more likely to trade for the needle available. Of course if there was a way to keep these things out of the jail we wouldn’t be having this constructive discussion about drugs. Makes you wonder.

Mental Health Worker said :

Watson said :

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

Let’s call it anecdotal evidence, evidence gathered from direct observation by reliable sources. When research fails to represent experience on the ground there are two possibilities – the research has failed to accurately describe reality, or the workers on the ground are observing events which are averaged out by actions they do not see, or are not aware of.

Both possibilities can easily occur. Research can easily fail, due to poor design. People’s’ observations can easily but unintentionally be biased.

As an example, note the oft-stated claim that there have been no reported incidents of syringes&needles being used as weapons in prisons where a NSP operates. Emphasise the word “reported” and it’s easy to see how they could have been used as weapons but this failed to show up in the research. A prisoenr threatened or robbed with a needle may nt report to authorities. Possibly even the researchers did not ask the question, so no-one reported it to them.

Those dismissing “common sense” may wish to consider this scenario – a prisoner is prescribed opiates for pain. S/he swallows them as required. Tomorrow he has access to a needle and syringe. He now has the option to not swallow, or to regurgitate, and inject them, for much greater effect. S/he is now more likely to inject. Maybe only 0.01% more likely,but still more likely than he was the day before. Same goes for any illegal drugs he occasionally manages to come across – in the absence of a needle he will ingest or smoke. Maybe he’ll save it for a day when he has a needle, and hope it doesn’t get found by officers. Given easy access to a needle, he will inject sooner, and therefore likely more frequently.

MHW

Mental Health Worker6:59 am 02 Aug 11

Watson said :

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

Let’s call it anecdotal evidence, evidence gathered from direct observation by reliable sources. When research fails to represent experience on the ground there are two possibilities – the research has failed to accurately describe reality, or the workers on the ground are observing events which are averaged out by actions they do not see, or are not aware of.

Both possibilities can easily occur. Research can easily fail, due to poor design. People’s’ observations can easily but unintentionally be biased.

As an example, note the oft-stated claim that there have been no reported incidents of syringes&needles being used as weapons in prisons where a NSP operates. Emphasise the word “reported” and it’s easy to see how they could have been used as weapons but this failed to show up in the research. A prisoenr threatened or robbed with a needle may nt report to authorities. Possibly even the researchers did not ask the question, so no-one reported it to them.

Those dismissing “common sense” may wish to consider this scenario – a prisoner is prescribed opiates for pain. S/he swallows them as required. Tomorrow he has access to a needle and syringe. He now has the option to not swallow, or to regurgitate, and inject them, for much greater effect. S/he is now more likely to inject. Maybe only 0.01% more likely,but still more likely than he was the day before. Same goes for any illegal drugs he occasionally manages to come across – in the absence of a needle he will ingest or smoke. Maybe he’ll save it for a day when he has a needle, and hope it doesn’t get found by officers. Given easy access to a needle, he will inject sooner, and therefore likely more frequently.

MHW

cleo1:35 am 02 Aug 11

Maybe it would be a good idea to supply needles, as the prisoners would be recognised and put into a detox and rehabilitation programme, that is the only reason I would agree with the needle programme

Violet689:53 pm 31 Jul 11

[Why do the pro-needle supporters want drug-fuc*ed idiots on both sides of the fence? Those that ‘care’ should volunteer to adopt a poor possum who has been convicted of a violent drug-related crime to rehabilitate them in their own home in their family environment. (Waiting for the NIMBY’s to post).

The idea of billeting a criminal has been suggested previously in the post and hence it has already been pointed out by more logical people that the suggestion is absurd and does not in any way relate to the debate about providing clean needles to prisoners.

Hang on. It might be a solution to the problem. Anyone who is sentenced for a *health issue* can be billeted out to a nice home where nice people live and nothing bad ever happens. The bad person can be assigned chain gang type activities, have no right to property, safety or privacy and god forbid any health care……(those privileges are only for nice people). The bad people will instantly become good people. Won’t that be just dandy!

Watson8:48 pm 31 Jul 11

Silentforce said :

This aint the 50’s, 60’s or even 70’s where anyone can claim ignorance that smoking, consuming illicit drugs, unsafe sex and sharing needles is at best unsafe and at worst, fatal. Since the the ‘Grim Reaper’ ads first appeared, anyone born since then has been subjected to the warnings and is knowledgeable of the risks of such destructive behaviours.

Their choice to do drugs, their choice to commit crime. Go to jail- tough titties.

Why do the pro-needle supporters want drug-fuc*ed idiots on both sides of the fence? Those that ‘care’ should volunteer to adopt a poor possum who has been convicted of a violent drug-related crime to rehabilitate them in their own home in their family environment. (Waiting for the NIMBY’s to post).

Err… maybe because transferable diseases are – wait, what’s the word – transferable? It’s not the kind of thing that you want to introduce or encourage in a population.

And also, no matter what I might think of people ending up in jail I do not wish HepC or HIV on anyone. They have access to clean needles on the outside, if you knowingly deny them access to clean needles on the inside, it’s as if you agree that forcing them to share dirty needles should be part of their sentence. And I always thought that double punishment was wrong and illegal.

Silentforce7:44 pm 31 Jul 11

This aint the 50’s, 60’s or even 70’s where anyone can claim ignorance that smoking, consuming illicit drugs, unsafe sex and sharing needles is at best unsafe and at worst, fatal. Since the the ‘Grim Reaper’ ads first appeared, anyone born since then has been subjected to the warnings and is knowledgeable of the risks of such destructive behaviours.

Their choice to do drugs, their choice to commit crime. Go to jail- tough titties.

Why do the pro-needle supporters want drug-fuc*ed idiots on both sides of the fence? Those that ‘care’ should volunteer to adopt a poor possum who has been convicted of a violent drug-related crime to rehabilitate them in their own home in their family environment. (Waiting for the NIMBY’s to post).

Jethro7:33 pm 31 Jul 11

Is the syringe in the photo the same one that Mulberry’s kid was given at school?

fgzk6:22 pm 31 Jul 11

Watson said :

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

We are talking about injecting drug users here. I don’t think common sense actually applies. But as Watson pointed out you may be making an assumption. Reality is injecting drug users, inject. They will wait till they have a clean needle or they will find an old one. They wont snort, swallow or smoke. Not the ones I know. That would be a waste.

Watson5:09 pm 31 Jul 11

Mental Health Worker said :

With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

That’s not called common sense. It is making assumptions based on absolutely nothing. Which is rather dangerous if the consequence of the assumption being wrong is that someone might contract a serious illness which could’ve been prevented.

Mental Health Worker10:44 am 31 Jul 11

Some interesting rants here. Here are a few more points to debate (logs on the fire…):

if 65% of prisoners are already Hep C positive, what are the chances of any more actually contracting it in prison? The other 35% probably aren’t injecting drug users on the outside, so unless they take it up in prison (and some may do so), they aren’t at risk of contracting it. (Bear in mind that not all prisoners are burglars and armed robbers with an injecting drug habit – there’s a significant smattering of child sex offenders, drink drivers, murderers, many of whom do not come from the injecting drug use demographic). Yes, some of the 65% may contract other strains of Hep C, or other strains of Hepatitis, but there’s a point at which we can’t protect everyone from their own poor decision making.

Provision of needles may not increase drug use in prison, but will increase INJECTING drug use. In the absence of a needle, a prisoner won’t necessarily stash the drugs for when one becomes available – they’ll injest, snort or smoke it. With easy access to needles, they’re now more likely to inject it. Research from other prison-based NSPs doesn’t support this view, but that may be a failing of the research to adequately measure reality. It’s common sense.

Heroin and other opiates are not the only drugs prisoners do and will inject. In fact, some will inject ANYTHING. Some of the drugs they will now be more easily able to inject, aren’t things you want them injecting, because they won’t be all mellow and happy afterwards – and I’m thinking Ice/Amphetamine, and Cocaine. Bad enough smoked or snorted, but really bad injected. Good luck to the staff in the proposed injecting room, because it’s going to be a pretty dangerous work environment.

MHW

Watson5:34 pm 29 Jul 11

The_Bulldog said :

Been some time since it got this narky. Nice.

Anyways – how about one consider the value of the “just because it hasn’t happened yet” argument and apply it to implementing a zero tolerance policy? Just because zero tolerance (arguably) hasn’t been entirely effective in relation to drugs, why should we dismiss the principal outright? Stay with me, resist the urge to respond with “because it’s stupid” and read on…

I think the core principal *everyone* can agree on is that, in theory, jail *should* be a safe and harm free environment where people are given the opportunity to rehabilitate, whilst being restricted from living amongst the community. I agree that supplying clean syringes is one way to minimise harm in the area of blood borne disease, but I would argue that stronger screening and detection would equally minimise the likelihood of drugs being there in the first place – proportionately minimising the risk of blood borne disease. If my friends or members of my family were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to find themselves in the AMC, I know what I’d be hoping for – drug free and clean.

So – shouldn’t we at least trial increased security and detection before we go down the path of accepting drug use in jail as inevitable?

Jumping away from the policy and into the emotive responses this issue has prompted – I think we also need to understand that to supply clean needles is not to condone the use of ilicit substances. Just so – the people supportive of this measure aren’t necessarily condoning the use of drugs, merely the fact that they feel it’s inevitable, and we have a responsibility to try and gain a measure of control in a shitty situation. I can’t really fault the logic, I just think this view is pretty bleak. So, if it’s just the same to everyone I’ll continue to strive for what’s best, not what’s better.

But why would striving for a drug-free environment have to rule out the supply of clean syringes? If zero tolerance is going to work one day, surely you must accept that it won’t happen overnight and there is value in preventing transmittable diseases in the meantime?

As far as this statement goes: “If my friends or members of my family were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to find themselves in the AMC, I know what I’d be hoping for – drug free and clean.”:

If my drug-addicted relative would end up in AMC, I would be hoping that they would be getting the support they need to work towards a drug-free future. I do not believe that forcing an addict to go cold turkey does anything for them, except possibly increase the risk of them overdosing as soon as they get out. So if the best way to ensure said relative’s commitment to being drug-free one day would be to provide them with clean needles and/or drugs while they work on a strategy to achieve this, I’d be much happier with that than a “let them suffer and find illegal and risky ways to get their fix” way.

But I have been told by some that there is such a thing as having too much empathy. I still don’t believe it though.

The Frots5:00 pm 29 Jul 11

The_Bulldog said :

Been some time since it got this narky. Nice.

Anyways – how about one consider the value of the “just because it hasn’t happened yet” argument and apply it to implementing a zero tolerance policy? Just because zero tolerance (arguably) hasn’t been entirely effective in relation to drugs, why should we dismiss the principal outright? Stay with me, resist the urge to respond with “because it’s stupid” and read on…

I think the core principal *everyone* can agree on is that, in theory, jail *should* be a safe and harm free environment where people are given the opportunity to rehabilitate, whilst being restricted from living amongst the community. I agree that supplying clean syringes is one way to minimise harm in the area of blood borne disease, but I would argue that stronger screening and detection would equally minimise the likelihood of drugs being there in the first place – proportionately minimising the risk of blood borne disease. If my friends or members of my family were unfortunate (or stupid) enough to find themselves in the AMC, I know what I’d be hoping for – drug free and clean.

So – shouldn’t we at least trial increased security and detection before we go down the path of accepting drug use in jail as inevitable?

Jumping away from the policy and into the emotive responses this issue has prompted – I think we also need to understand that to supply clean needles is not to condone the use of ilicit substances. Just so – the people supportive of this measure aren’t necessarily condoning the use of drugs, merely the fact that they feel it’s inevitable, and we have a responsibility to try and gain a measure of control in a shitty situation. I can’t really fault the logic, I just think this view is pretty bleak. So, if it’s just the same to everyone I’ll continue to strive for what’s best, not what’s better.

Good post and it makes sense.

Now, brace yourself for the inevitable………………………………….

Watson8:18 am 29 Jul 11

The Frots said :

Jim Jones said :

And for those banging on about the ‘success’ of zero tolerance in New York – not even Wikipedia grants it credence:

“On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn’t play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani’s one, but it faced a crime increase instead.

Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Associate Professor at American University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that “neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses.”

The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.

Since the original 1973 program had a positive impact on the citizens, who were left with the false impression it had improved their safety, the program has been described as a public relation policy instead of a safety one.”

Damn that pesky ‘evidence’ (citations for peer reviewed journals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance.

Unless you want to claim that wikipedia is a massive left-wing conspiracy (and, by all means, be my guest … I’d be more than amused), those who support zero tolerance don’t have a leg to stand on.

Steady on old chap – no point in honking and bleating around the place because you were able to log onto Wikipedia.

Really hard to get a post now without the Wiki references being wheeled out. As Wiki tends to rely on contributors and their contributions (I know this because I contribute to some science articles in there), perhaps more noted comments will do as well?

So, let’s take a sample.

Government must show “zero tolerance” on drugs, says expert
Professor Neil McKeganey critical of “soft approach” to drug abuse
Monday 05 November 2007, The Journal Issue 1

A leading Scottish expert on drug abuse has called for a “zero tolerance” strategy from the Scottish government in dealing with illegal drugs. Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow said that the drug situation in Scotland had reached breaking point and that the authorities were giving out the wrong signals. He highlighted the downgrading of cannabis to a class C drug as a symptom of a “soft approach”.

Speaking to a group of Swedish politicians, he praised Sweden’s zero tolerance approach to drugs. “There are potential benefits for Scotland in adopting a zero tolerance policy on illegal drugs. We can learn from the Swedish example but there are also aspects of our approach here to illegal drugs that could benefit the Swedes.” Sweden has one of the lowest levels of drug abuse in Europe.

Tomas Hallberg, the director of European Cities Against Drugs Initiative, was amongst the delegation.

Or perhaps this article by Kate Burgess in 2003:

A return to a zero tolerance approach, it aims to stamp out illicit drug use with an emphasis on law enforcement.
Prime Minister John Howard launched the policy in conjunction with his chief drugs policy advisor of the Salvation Army. Pat Daly, a spokesperson for the Salvation Army supports a zero tolerance approach with an emphasis on ‘Harm Prevention’. “There is no safe way to do drugs,” he said. “Law enforcement is part of a three-pronged approach to make drugs socially unacceptable,” he added.

Since Tough on Drugs was introduced, the proportion of the population who had used an illicit drug dropped from 22% in 1998 to 19.6% in 2001. The number of Australians aged over 13 who had been offered heroin decreased from 2.4% to 1.5% over the same period, according to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) in 2001.

Zero Tolerance is practised in many areas, for example the NSW Police (2003), the major sporting codes, the Olympics and so on. While it doesn’t get all the drugs, as we know, it does contribute heavily to the reduction of drug use.

So Jimbo, back to the original post. Drug use in prisons can be reduced dramatically using a zero tolerance approach.

Oh we could go all week quoting people for and against. Just Google it.

For example, the Sweden study is called flawed by some experts because: “In a climate of intolerance, who’s going to admit that they’re a drug user?” And apparently they have a much higher incidence of drug overdose. If of course you just want the drug users off the street, overdosing might suit you better than trying to help them, as it’s a much faster solution.

Policy makers make of the stats what they want. And I think it is very brave of the ACT Govt to not try to hide the fact that there are drugs in prison. Because that would’ve been the easy way out.

The Frots11:39 pm 28 Jul 11

Jim Jones said :

And for those banging on about the ‘success’ of zero tolerance in New York – not even Wikipedia grants it credence:

“On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn’t play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani’s one, but it faced a crime increase instead.

Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Associate Professor at American University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that “neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses.”

The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.

Since the original 1973 program had a positive impact on the citizens, who were left with the false impression it had improved their safety, the program has been described as a public relation policy instead of a safety one.”

Damn that pesky ‘evidence’ (citations for peer reviewed journals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance.

Unless you want to claim that wikipedia is a massive left-wing conspiracy (and, by all means, be my guest … I’d be more than amused), those who support zero tolerance don’t have a leg to stand on.

Steady on old chap – no point in honking and bleating around the place because you were able to log onto Wikipedia.

Really hard to get a post now without the Wiki references being wheeled out. As Wiki tends to rely on contributors and their contributions (I know this because I contribute to some science articles in there), perhaps more noted comments will do as well?

So, let’s take a sample.

Government must show “zero tolerance” on drugs, says expert
Professor Neil McKeganey critical of “soft approach” to drug abuse
Monday 05 November 2007, The Journal Issue 1

A leading Scottish expert on drug abuse has called for a “zero tolerance” strategy from the Scottish government in dealing with illegal drugs. Professor Neil McKeganey of the University of Glasgow said that the drug situation in Scotland had reached breaking point and that the authorities were giving out the wrong signals. He highlighted the downgrading of cannabis to a class C drug as a symptom of a “soft approach”.

Speaking to a group of Swedish politicians, he praised Sweden’s zero tolerance approach to drugs. “There are potential benefits for Scotland in adopting a zero tolerance policy on illegal drugs. We can learn from the Swedish example but there are also aspects of our approach here to illegal drugs that could benefit the Swedes.” Sweden has one of the lowest levels of drug abuse in Europe.

Tomas Hallberg, the director of European Cities Against Drugs Initiative, was amongst the delegation.

Or perhaps this article by Kate Burgess in 2003:

A return to a zero tolerance approach, it aims to stamp out illicit drug use with an emphasis on law enforcement.
Prime Minister John Howard launched the policy in conjunction with his chief drugs policy advisor of the Salvation Army. Pat Daly, a spokesperson for the Salvation Army supports a zero tolerance approach with an emphasis on ‘Harm Prevention’. “There is no safe way to do drugs,” he said. “Law enforcement is part of a three-pronged approach to make drugs socially unacceptable,” he added.

Since Tough on Drugs was introduced, the proportion of the population who had used an illicit drug dropped from 22% in 1998 to 19.6% in 2001. The number of Australians aged over 13 who had been offered heroin decreased from 2.4% to 1.5% over the same period, according to the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) in 2001.

Zero Tolerance is practised in many areas, for example the NSW Police (2003), the major sporting codes, the Olympics and so on. While it doesn’t get all the drugs, as we know, it does contribute heavily to the reduction of drug use.

So Jimbo, back to the original post. Drug use in prisons can be reduced dramatically using a zero tolerance approach.

Mental Health Worker8:27 pm 28 Jul 11

Just to unfashionably return to topic:

• the report is shallow and biased; any report on drug use in prisons that fails to mention misuse of prescription drugs, is either naive or has some hidden agenda (such as not wanting to offend prescribers); see http://www.med.unsw.edu.au/ndarcweb.nsf/resources/2010IDRS1/$file/National_+IDRS_2010.pdf
• the report misrepresents and greatly understates CPSU and correctional officer opposition to a needle and syringe program; it describes it as if there are gaps in the opposition that can be exploited; there aren’t; correctional officers, and most other staff working there, are staunchly against a NSP;
• the report quotes the Burnet Review extensively, but that report was rubbish, and the authors of this new report openly admitted such in their “stakeholder consultations”; so why do they rely on it so much?
• their stakeholder consultations were no such thing – they were focus groups intended to try to convince participants of the merits, and the lack of drawbacks, of a NSP; think “push-polling” and you’ll get the picture;
• the recommendations ignore the fact that there is simply no room (not philosophical room, but physical space) in the health centre to try any of the models; what other service provision will stop to make room for an injecting room?
• the authors point out the problems with some of their less-preferred models, but rather than rejecting them as impractical, they recommend them as fallback options if their preferred models don’t work; this suggests that the authors support a NSP at all costs; the vending machine model is the worst of all worlds, giving access to needles to everyone in the prison, no matter how “mad, bad or sad” they are, if their recommended approach is adopted and options 1 and 2 fail. There will be deaths as a result, unquestionably – the only question will be “of whom?”. Will they be suicide, accidental overdoses, murders of prisoners or murders of staff?
• The report gives little attention to the need to establish baseline measures before introducing a NSP. You can’t evaluate an initiative properly AFTER introducing it. But to establish baseline measures would take time, and there seems to be an unholy rush to introduce a NSP, so no time to properly design the evaluation.
• There are numerous other problems with the report that cannot be mentioned here, and that will not be in submissions as staff working at the prison will not be permitted to make submissions.

MHW

Jim Jones7:10 pm 28 Jul 11

And for those banging on about the ‘success’ of zero tolerance in New York – not even Wikipedia grants it credence:

“On the historical examples of the application of zero tolerance kind of policies, all the scientific studies conclude that it didn’t play a leading role in the reduction of crimes, a role which is instead claimed by its advocates. In New York, the decline of crimes rate started well before Rudy Giuliani came to power, in 1993, and none of the decreasing processes had particular inflection under him. In the same period of time, the decrease in crime was the same in the other major US cities, even those with an opposite security policy; finally, in the years 1984-7 New York already experienced a policy similar to Giuliani’s one, but it faced a crime increase instead.

Two of the best American specialists, Edward Maguire, an Associate Professor at American University, and John Eck from the University of Cincinnati, rigorously evaluated all the scientific work designed to test the efficiency of the police in the fight against crime. They concluded that “neither the number of policemen engaged in the battle, or internal changes and organizational culture of law enforcement agencies (such as the introduction of community policing) have by themselves impact on the evolution of offenses.”

The crime decrease was due not the work of the police and judiciary, but to economic and demographic factors. The main ones were an unprecedented economic growth with jobs for millions of young people, and a shift from the use of crack towards other drugs.

Since the original 1973 program had a positive impact on the citizens, who were left with the false impression it had improved their safety, the program has been described as a public relation policy instead of a safety one.”

Damn that pesky ‘evidence’ (citations for peer reviewed journals at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_tolerance.

Unless you want to claim that wikipedia is a massive left-wing conspiracy (and, by all means, be my guest … I’d be more than amused), those who support zero tolerance don’t have a leg to stand on.

The Frots3:35 pm 28 Jul 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

Where has zero tolerence been effective?

Be careful with stats – if you mean erradicated, well, some gaols in the US are heading that way I think but it is a long road.

But let’s look at your theory and apply it to another problem with gaols. Rapes within prisons. How would you deal with it CSRI? It’s not something ‘brought in’, thrown over a wall, or smuggled in the by the guards. So, as it still goes on, what would you do? Would you, based on your ‘let’s give them drugs theory’:

Provide them with women, or men, so that the rapes don’t continue?
Provide the kiddie fiddlers with children so that their urges don’t overpower them within gaol?
Perhaps submit the poor guards to the sexual desires of the dominant prisoners so as to keep the ‘peace’ within the gaol?

You want to look at a problem to fix, forget the drugs – fix this!

That is really beyond the pale.

I am arguing for harm minimisation and you liken my argument to providing children to be raped by prisoners? I think the fact that you would make such a leap reflects pretty poorly on you.

It is a highly offensive way to avoid a simple question, which I will reitterate, ‘where has zero tolerance been effective?’

I’m guessing that you don’t like the reality of your position. If you find it offensive, then imagine how people who have been affected by narcotics, or lost family and friends, are finding your solution? Not nice is it.

Your question, if you read above, was answered. Zero tolerance is being tried – but there are long ways to go. But they are trying. If you are expecting stats, I do not have them. Feel free to comment about ‘no empirical evidence to support this and that………..blah, blah………but sometimes you don’t need statistics to know that tomorrow the sun will rise in the east – it is common sense.

colourful sydney racing identity3:25 pm 28 Jul 11

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

Where has zero tolerence been effective?

Be careful with stats – if you mean erradicated, well, some gaols in the US are heading that way I think but it is a long road.

But let’s look at your theory and apply it to another problem with gaols. Rapes within prisons. How would you deal with it CSRI? It’s not something ‘brought in’, thrown over a wall, or smuggled in the by the guards. So, as it still goes on, what would you do? Would you, based on your ‘let’s give them drugs theory’:

Provide them with women, or men, so that the rapes don’t continue?
Provide the kiddie fiddlers with children so that their urges don’t overpower them within gaol?
Perhaps submit the poor guards to the sexual desires of the dominant prisoners so as to keep the ‘peace’ within the gaol?

You want to look at a problem to fix, forget the drugs – fix this!

That is really beyond the pale.

I am arguing for harm minimisation and you liken my argument to providing children to be raped by prisoners? I think the fact that you would make such a leap reflects pretty poorly on you.

It is a highly offensive way to avoid a simple question, which I will reitterate, ‘where has zero tolerance been effective?’

The Frots3:19 pm 28 Jul 11

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

colourful sydney racing identity said :

The Frots said :

johnboy said :

And when you’ve finished shouting “prison! the end!” the drugs will still be there.

Hmmmm. Well, lets give up then!

Let’s make sure that the heroin, cocaine, crystal meth and even the weed that they were using on the streets is medically suitable and available for them when they get into prison. That will surely satisfy the ‘human rights’, ‘safety’ and all sorts of other policies we are so concerned about.

Finally you are making sense.

Oh, come on. Seriously………?

Well, not quite. If you had argued that the medically suitable drugs should be legally supplied in broader society then you would be making sense.

Vastly different position there I’m afraid. You’ll be aware that there has been plenty of arguement about the legilisation of narcotics since the late 1970’s as a way of reducing overdoses and of course minimising the impacts of organised crime on the market. Both aspects would probably be reduced – but you would have a fairly zoned out population.

But narcotics in prison is different. Zero tolerance is effective and it can be done and maintained. Some just choose to say it’s ‘too hard’ so what can we do to soften it.

If we really have people in these positions of authority who are satisified with the answer ‘it can’t be done’ then we probably need a significant change. What else ‘can’t be done’?

Where has zero tolerence been effective?

Be careful with stats – if you mean erradicated, well, some gaols in the US are heading that way I think but it is a long road.

But let’s look at your theory and apply it to another problem with gaols. Rapes within prisons. How would you deal with it CSRI? It’s not something ‘brought in’, thrown over a wall, or smuggled in the by the guards. So, as it still goes on, what would you do? Would you, based on your ‘let’s give them drugs theory’:

Provide them with women, or men, so that the rapes don’t continue?
Provide the kiddie fiddlers with children so that their urges don’t overpower them within gaol?
Perhaps submit the poor guards to the sexual desires of the dominant prisoners so as to keep the ‘peace’ within the gaol?

You want to look at a problem to fix, forget the drugs – fix this!

View more conversations

Featured Businesses

Commercial Real Estate Agents

Raine & Horne Commercial

Your business and property is important to us.

Find out more

Electricians

True Connection Electrical

Since 2014, True Connection Electrical have been servicing residential and small commercial clients with reliable, trustworthy and top-quality electrical work.

Find out more