Prisoners with more rights than victims

We invited readers to submit opinion articles to the BBC Scotland news website. This week Karen Roberts, an information assistant from Aberdeen, reacts to compensation payments being made to prisoners who have been slopping out. We asked for your views on what she has to say.

PRISON SHOULD BE A PUNISHMENT NOT A HOLIDAY CAMP

Imagine that the dregs of society - rapists, paedophiles and murderers - live in the lap of luxury.

They can even claim compensation for some practices that "violate" their human rights, while their victims have to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.

Today's compensation culture allows them to do just that.

I live in Aberdeen, not far from Peterhead Prison where some of the country's most notorious sex offenders are housed.

That includes Stuart Leggate who, instead of spending his time in prison being punished for killing an eight-year-old boy, watches DVDs and plays video games.

Currently, all inmates in Peterhead prison have to "slop out", emptying chemical toilets every morning.

However recent legal action could see a flood of compensation cases by prisoners.

Prisoners have to empty their toilets every morning

Robert Napier - a former remand prisoner at Barlinnie jail was awarded £2,400 after a judge ruled that slopping out was degrading and violated his human rights. Napier later served a sentence for robbery and abduction.

Those who've suffered at the hands of these criminals must surely be wondering why the courts are paying out for an apparent violation of human rights when they paid no heed to the rights of their victims.

They are bound to be dismayed that the so-called justice system pays such criminals who feel they've been aggrieved.

After all, these people are in jail not a holiday camp, and unless we have all missed something, prison is where you go as a punishment.

Why should they receive money just because they had to clean out their toilets?

Heinous crimes

It may be humiliating, but do they feel any more degraded than their innocent victims?

For those in jail for the most heinous crimes, slopping out should not be too much of a bind, after all, later on, they can still go and listen to a CD or watch one of their favourite DVDs.

Incidentally, I wonder who pays for these luxuries.

Now it seems some victims could have the chance to fight back, taking legal action against their attackers if they win slopping out compensation.

This is welcome news, who could argue that the money shouldn't go to the victims instead of lining the offenders' pockets?

Sadly with the Scottish Executive having set aside more than £40m to deal with prisoners' claims, more cases like Napier's will be coming to the courts, a fact that's bound to distress victims.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and are not endorsed by the BBC.

---

We asked for your thoughts on Karen Robert's article. The following represents the balance of opinions we received.

The only prisoners who should receive compensation are those who were wrongly convicted. Criminals are in prison for a reason. They have shattered innocent lives and left victims struggling to cope. Slopping out is a small price to pay.
Anne, Toronto, Canada

Whilst I agree that prison should not be cushy by any means, it will do any inmate no good to be continually degraded over a period of time. How is a person supposed to reform or change or learn, if all they are experiencing is degradation in one form or another?
Steve, Fife, Scotland

It is for the courts to punish those who break the law and often the punishment is imprisonment, but let's be quite clear, they are not being sent there to receive punishment (that was received at court) but rather to have their liberty restricted. The focus of this debate should be directed at the Scottish Executive who also broke the law - whether you agree with that law or not. Perhaps if their punishment was imprisonment rather than compensation things would be very different.
Alan, Glasgow, UK

I have read that if an offender is going to be rehabilitated it will be on their first visit to jail. Re-offenders become institutionalised and subsequently continue to re-offend. If we made prisons for re-offenders tougher places, no TV etc, it may help.
Jim Neil, Ayrshire

Since when has having a flush toilet been considered "the lap of luxury"? Prison should be hard, but do we really want a situation where prisoners have no protection from abuse at all? If this happened Peterhead would become no better than a Soviet Gulag or a Nazi concentration camp. For the law to be respected it must extend to cover everyone, not just those judged "worthy" of its protection. I suspect that a weekend spent inside one of Scotland's Victorian jails might just change Karen's views.
Peter, Nottingham

If these prisoners do not like the idea of 'slopping out' maybe they would prefer we go back to a corporal punishment system? The litigious culture in this country is one that only America can beat. Bring back public flogging I say!
Terry, Coventry, England

Human rights are inalienable; they are yours because you were fortunate enough to be born human and that is the only criteria. The suggestions that prisoners undertake some form of occupation which will raise funds for the prison service is a fair one, provided that the occupation itself does not violate human rights. The punishment for committing a crime is the loss of the right to liberty, all other human rights remain.

There are a number of reasons why prison should be a place for rehabilitation and education, rather than simply punishment, but the most obvious one is that if prisoners are not rehabilitated, then by definition they will re-offend resulting in more victims and more expense the tax-payer.
Theresa, Glasgow

Prison is punishment (or at least it should be) - pure and simple. Compensation payments ridicule our legal system and all those who have been victimised by heinous crimes. As for all those Liberal Hippies out there who relentlessly harp on about basic human rights - shut up and remember that these CRIMINALS denied their victims theirs.

I for one am SEETHING at the thought of my taxes going to line criminals pockets in the form of compensation payments!
Gayle Morton, Glasgow

Prison should be a deterrent. Anyone who commits a crime against another human being violates that person's rights, and so should forfeit their own until their debt to society has been paid. For prisoners to complain about being degraded or demeaned is obscene. They have a roof over their head and they are being fed, which is more than a lot of other, decent people have. All those defending the rights of criminals should try looking at life through the eyes of victims of crime.
M.P., UK

Mr Hay's views are unsurprising given the fact that Scottish solicitors enjoy the ability to crusade for such worthy principles at the expense of the taxpayer through the Legal Aid system. One wonders if he has ever had his house turned over by one of the poor souls in prison for repeating such minor offences.
Robbie, Hamilton

Any person replying here could go to prison for an offence which deserves punishment but was not done in malice and was accidental. If that happened to me, I would want my human rights looked after.
Sam, Fife

It is the self-righteous comments from reader Marc that infuriate the good people of this country. The punishment of a prison is to take away liberty, nothing else. But it can also serve as a breeding ground for criminal careers. To prevent this we can try and rehabilitate them to better our society and prevent a vicious circle of re-offending. When applicable, we have to punish, but not at the moral expense of society.
Matt, Glasgow

If you will pardon the obvious slopping out pun, I fall between two stools here. While agreeing that slopping out is a degrading and out-of-date practice, I believe that any money set aside by the Scottish Executive should be used to improve the plumbing in Scottish prisons rather than paying compensation to prisoners.

One could argue that prisoners wouldn't be slopping out if they weren't in prison, they wouldn't be in prison if they weren't criminals (in an ideal world) - ergo claiming compensation for slopping out is tantamount to profiting from criminal activity - and the State has the right to confiscate the proceeds of crime. Discuss.
Graham Purnell, Edinburgh, Scotland

I believe that by denying someone their human rights, the criminals should lose theirs as well.
Gaz, Cardiff

Prison is not only to punish, it is to rehabilitate. If people treat prisoners badly, the prisoners are only going to become more angry at the system, which will help nobody. You can't keep everyone locked away for ever. It disturbs me sometimes how right-wing this country is becoming.
Nick Entwistle, Bucks, UK

A good article. Well done Karen.

Poor fella, according to David Hay in Glasgow, slopping out aggravated Napier's skin complaint. Well it would have been cheaper for the state to have bought him some laboratory gloves (you get them for sensitive skin - and no chemicals or bacteria can break through them). The wider community that we live in is far too politically correct. These inmates have been sent to prison to be punished, so let's punish them.
Leanne, Dundee, UK

The human rights vs debt to society debate continues to bump along, but Karen Roberts speaks what I believe the vast majority of us think. Those who commit crimes which take away the human rights of others should not be given a greater level of consideration than those who suffer at their hands. Why do some parts of society feel the overwhelming need to understand and support those who commit crimes whilst ignoring the fate of their victims?
James, Edinburgh, Scotland

In response to Scott Robertson, whilst of course he is correct that solicitors do get paid regardless (and I ask him to name any other profession that would accept to do work for nothing - and work solicitors do), I personally do not work in that sphere but am commenting, with professional insight, on the rights of all.

People support draconian sanctions until they are the victim of their inflexibility, innocently, by human error, and errors do occur. I am not sanctioning the offences of criminals but in a modern Britain certain standards have to be maintained.
David Hay, Glasgow, Scotland

Jonathon mentions how Karen would feel if she was "housebound". Well, there is a difference. Being housebound due to medical reasons in not something you can decide to do in advance: committing a crime is.
Neil Small, Scotland

Hear hear Karen. I saw a news clip the other night showing prison conditions in Manila, with filthy conditions, serious overcrowding and mixing ALL prisoners together in the same cells, whether they were petty thieves or paedophiles. The first thing I thought was 'that is how prison should be in this country'.

I agree with human rights for innocent folk. If some of our top politicians had the same head on them as Karen then this country would be a hell of a better place to be in.
JL, Wishaw, Scotland

I am a former resident of Peterhead (the town, not the prison) and agree entirely with Ms Roberts. People are sent to prison as punishment for a crime, and if they have to 'slop out' then so be it - it's part of their punishment. A long time ago inmates at Peterhead were kept busy quarrying rocks used to build the local breakwater. If prison authorities came up with some more ways to exploit these criminals, they wouldn't have time to moan about using chemical toilets.
Gareth Ledwith, Leeds, UK

I whole-heartedly agree with Karen. It is about time that the judicial system was overhauled to ensure that those convicted of crime receive a sentence suitable for their actions. The courts appear to have their logic skewed at times and some sentences handed down are utterly laughable.

Furthermore, once convicted, they should not be entitled to 'benefits' at the expense of the taxpayer. Slopping out is a problem? Then don't commit the crime. It infuriates me to hear of criminals whinging about lack of human rights and it infuriates me even more to hear civil rights campaigners whinging about it. Criminals relinquish their human rights the second they violate and remove the rights of their victims.
Al, Edinburgh

Some prisoners may deserve compensation, some may not - why don't we let the courts decide? Some people have expressed the view that your human rights should be abolished as soon as you go to jail. Does that apply to prisoners on remand? They haven't been convicted of anything as yet, so should we abridge their human rights just because they are being held in jail?

Its very easy to see these things in black and white - and I include the more liberal view in that condemnation as well as the more reactionary, but the plain fact of the matter is that things are not nearly that simple.
Iain, Edinburgh

If prison isn't also about rehabilitation, then we might as well stop now and go back to a system of corporal and capital punishment. Not every prisoner is a murderer or rapist and I doubt Karen's assertion about living in the 'lap of luxury'. If we don't treat these people like human beings then how can we expect them to do the rest of society the same courtesy when they are eventually freed?
Stephanie Boyd, Edinburgh, Scotland

Human rights must be unconditional. The fact that a human happens to be imprisoned for committing a crime is irrelevant - they should still be able to defend their rights. If society assigned varying levels of rights based on an individual's merit, then surely factors beside criminality would affect a person's status? Who would decide these factors?

The Scottish Prison Service and Scottish Executive have (in at least one case) abused someone's human rights, and that person deserves to be compensated.

The phrase "common sense" has been used frequently in this debate, but as always it is a substitute for a cohesive argument.
David Beaton, Glasgow, UK

Why do people think that emptying a chemical toilet (slopping out) is inhumane or undignified. Carers, nurses and auxiliary nurses do this several times a day and night, but do we view these people as being dehumanised? Inhumane and degrading is to be raped, abducted, stabbed, beaten or robbed, not emptying a toilet.
Alex, Glasgow

Reading this article and the vast majority of comments in support of it saddened me greatly. I didn't realise there were so many twisted minds outside the prison gates in our country.
Ewan McGhee, Wishaw

If you do the crime, you do the time. Where is the deterrent for murder? There is none in the UK. America is not everybody's cup of tea, but you get heavy prison sentences and it's tough if you don't toe the line. Chains are still in use and the smashing of quarry stones.
John Buchanan, Germany

As is normal in such surveys, the vast majority of respondents advocate the common sense view that law breakers deserve to be punished and should not be treated with more respect and compassion than their victims. I completely agree with Karen and I wonder why so many of our "prisoner-friendly" rules and entitlements seem to have been formulated by those from the minority viewpoint?
Ian, Perth

I think Karen is speaking for the majority in this country and more power to her. Why is it that when it comes to "Human Rights", it is only the dregs who seem to fight this and as has been said by another commentator, it is the lawyers who make plenty of money from these absurd compensation claims.
Mary, Glasgow

The law is not giving out the justice that the majority of law-abiding citizens expect. The idea of compensating criminals for slopping out is upsetting when I'm willing to bet we are paying for their housing and upkeep when they are on the outside.
Ronie B, Edinburgh

The people slopping out in Barlinnie at the time Robert Napier took his case were remand prisoners, i.e. they were awaiting trial and had not been found guilty of anything yet. Does Ms Roberts think that people awaiting trial are in prison to be punished (and viciously punished, as David Hay points out)? From what she says, it seems plain that Ms Roberts has never actually visited a prison and seen the conditions prisoners are kept in.
Bob, Brussels, Belgium

The idea of compensating criminals is disgusting. The idea that criminals can obtain drugs in jail is disgusting.
J.Brunton, Edinburgh

So what's the big deal about emptying a chemical toilet? Routine task for anyone with a motorhome or caravan. Inconvenient? Surely. Degrading? Hardly!
Bruce Hogg, Loanhead, Midlothian

Ms Roberts was being rather gentle with her views. What she failed to mention was that certain inmates studied for a law degree whilst in prison (which was paid for by the taxpayer). They then used these degrees to file these claims against their "human rights". They are now advising other inmates on how to do the same.

I have lived and worked in many countries round the world and the ones that have the lowest repeat offenders are the countries which take the stand "if you do the crime and are found guilty of that crime you lose your human rights and you do hard labour to repay your debt to society". This is the stand the UK (and other countries) should take and the millions which are saved could be diverted to education, health or creating a social environment, which alienates crime rather than sympathise and find excuses for the criminals and not the victims.
James Mackay, Zurich, Switzerland

While they are complaining about slopping out, all I can think is they are lucky the laws and justice system are not as strong/strict as other parts of the world, especially when most people in Peterhead prison should be on death row for what they have done. What do you think they would prefer - to be on a death sentence or slopping out?
Fiona, Peterhead

The 'punishment' of prison lies in the removal of prisoners' liberty - they spend a significant amount of their jail term locked in an enclosed space. The Scottish Prison Service has a duty to ensure that no prisoners' human rights are violated during their sentence. In regard to the video games, DVDs and CDs, exposure to the arts and education through these mediums can improve reintegration into society and reduce reoffending - surely this is the aim?

Furthermore, the situation of compensation claims would not arise if more use was made of non-custodial sentencing for those committing less serious crimes, leaving substantially more money in the pot to deal appropriately with serious and dangerous offenders like Stuart Leggate.
BM, Glasgow

Well said Karen. While I am all for offender rehabilitation and access to resources to facilitate this, there is also a punitive element to every custodial sentence. Slopping out is not a pleasant task, but hardly life threatening, and in fact some honest hard working people who clean toilets for a living do the equivalent of this with other people's mess on a daily basis.

For public money to go on this bizarre "scam for prisoners" is disgraceful. By all means upgrade prisons but in my opinion let them wait for this and spend the £40m (and the rest) on upgrades, rather than handouts.
Bob, Aberdeen

Think about it. Most prisoners get out some day. What would we like them to have learnt whilst inside? Would we like them to have learnt that it's OK to deprive people of their human rights? Isn't this precisely one of the reasons they have been sent there?

No-one, including the Prison Service, has the right to violate people's human rights. This is the underlying point being made by the ruling. It's crucial.

Above all else, I would like people who have spent time inside to understand people's rights and have learnt to respect them.
David, Bathgate, Scotland

David Hay and Jonathan from Edinburgh's comments show exactly what is wrong with this country...bleeding-heart liberals who believe there's not such a thing as a "bad person"...how wrong can they be....although methinks David Hay's rant is more about how much money he would lose....typical!!!
Ian Stewart, Glasgow

You can measure a civilised society by how it treats its prisoners. I would like to think that we live in a civilised society...wouldn't you?
Ian, Edinburgh

I agree with Karen Roberts whole-heartedly. Too much time and money is taken to make these criminals lives more comfortable. And anyway, is slopping out all that bad? Did these prisoners not clean their toilets at home before they were jailed?!?
David, Alness, Scotland

I don't know enough about Mr Leggate's case to comment on it but surely one of the most important functions of prison is to try to make inmates into better people so that they become worthwhile members of society when they are released. Perhaps those advocating complete deprivation of human rights up to and including removal of DVDs and TV would like to explain how they would achieve this. The gentleman who advocates return to "Victorian regimes" should remember that we have abolished slavery and no longer send children up chimneys. We're in the 21st Century, for heaven's sake.
Dave, Perth, Perthshire

David Hay makes some interesting points but let me tell him about life for ordinary country folk in the early 1960s. My paternal grandparents lived in Angus and their lavatory was a shed at the end of the garden with a wooden seat over a bucket. My Grandfather emptied this in a midden every other day. At night there were chamber pots under the beds which were emptied every morning. My maternal grandparents lived in the Hebrides and did not have a shed - only chamber pots for the women folk. The men and boys used the sheugh in the byre and then cleaned up with a shovel. Does Mr Hay want to represent me for my loss of human rights because I had to "slop out" every time I visited my grandparents?

I think that Mr Hay protests too much - or is it the thought of losing his share of the £40m he plans to get in fees? What a crazy world we live in.
Charlie, Edinburgh

I bet most people ranting how "good" prison is have never been, or at least, visited one. The day is mundane and repetitive. Most of it is spent in your cell. Communication to the outside world is limited, and you're not allowed to leave the compounds. It's hardly fun, and certainly not better than being free.

However, I do feel that he shouldn't have claimed compensation, I feel it's fair enough to clean out your own mess, and if you have a skin complaint, get provided with gloves and protective clothing. Simple.
Chris, UK

I don't see how letting prisoner's have CDs, DVDs and a TV is a luxury. They go to prison to pay for their crime, only get out when recreation is set a few hours a day, and don't get to see their family whenever they want, like everyone on the other side of those bars!! They pay for their TV (£1) out of their £8 per week wages (which doesn't seem that much to us, but to people getting that wage a week it does). As for slopping-out, yes it's part of prison life, but I don't feel it's right! Everyone is used to a normal household toilet. Not buckets!!!
Jenni, Stirlingshire

I think that the law system cares more about the people who commit crime than the victims. We should be stripping all of the TVs, videos, goodies, etc and make prison a very unpleasant place to go to, instead of a 4-star hotel. It's about time we got rid of the "do-gooders" in our society or even better when the criminals come out of jail they have to be housed with them.
Denis Bradley, Gourock, Scotland

As ever, opinions never cease to amaze me with their variation. In this case, I completely support the reasoned response of David Hay. The aim of prison is one of taking away a person's freedom. And freedom we know these days to be a big deal - after all, didn't we start a war in Iraq to protect our freedom?

Taking away a person's freedom is therefore the punishment our society uses as a deterrent to criminal behaviour. Having studied criminology and visited prisons in the UK and USA, I can state that being in prison is not pleasant. Even without slopping out, it degrades the individual you are.

If we are to be a modern society that aims to advance civilisation then we must look at trying to help as many offenders as possible, as often they too have been victims of their own past. I admit that in some cases there is very little you can do and some crimes are so awful that it is not safe for the person to be involved in general society. However, the majority of inmates are there due to repeat offending of minor crimes such as theft and other drug related offences.
Neale Kinnear, Glasgow

Ultimately in a humane society the basic human rights of all individuals must be protected. Criminal action ought to be followed by rehabilitation of the offender, with, where necessary, removal of the offender to jail if he/she is considered a threat to society. Punishment may act as a deterrent, but it is a negative big stick approach. In a positive forward-looking humane society, we should be applying as many carrots as possible and aiming for rehabilitation of offenders.

Where an individual is in prison for the protection of society and that person's human rights have been violated, then that person must have recourse to remedy the situation. Any compensation won should not go directly to the individual but be fed back into the system to rectify the problem for that individual. After all, the inmate is already living at the public's expense. And thus we protect basic human rights but do not reward criminals for being in prison.
Brian, Aberdeen

It is the comments from reader David Hay that infuriate the good people of this country. Where are the rights for the victims?
Marc, Glasgow

Who said Thatcherism was dead? I have never read such knee-jerk, reactionary, right wing bile in all of my life. Prisoners are being punished in prison (they have lost their right to liberty) but only punishing prisoners merely breeds resentment and does nothing to cut re-offending.

Interestingly all of those who wish to return to the extremes of Victoriana only use the extreme (murder and rape etc) to back up their "arguments". The vast, vast majority of prisoners are in for minor crimes and pose no great threat to society, but I presume these hang 'em and flog 'em types would support the re-introduction of the death penalty for shoplifting?

Slopping out is degrading to anyone and prisoners should have the same basic rights to hygiene and sanitation as the rest of us.
Keith Brockie, Dunfermline

Karen's views are spot on, and reflect the opinion of the vast majority of people. In today's world, people can essentially commit any crime with impunity, as they know fine they will not be adequately punished or properly dealt with. These days it all comes down to keeping prison costs down, as opposed to ensuring adequate punishment/rehabilitation.
Graham Wright, Glasgow, Scotland

Strong views indeed, however I wonder just how Ms Roberts is aware of the 'luxurious' conditions offered to inmates of Her Majesty's Prisons? I hardly regard CD and DVD playing facilities as occupying the height of luxury. Are we to deny prisoners anything of artistic merit? I would have thought the less time prisoners take learning tricks of the trade from their fellow inmates, the better.

I think it is worth spelling out, as a solicitor, how the recent Napier case will not result in a flood of successful claims. Anyone who actually takes the time to read the judgment - available at the Scottish Courts Service's website - would see the reason Napier was successful was linked not merely to the fact he was slopping out, but also that this aggravated a skin condition he has, together with the regime in place at Barlinnie. As a whole this was viewed in the circumstances as being a breach of Napier's human rights - rights enjoyed by all. Napier has undoubtedly violated the rights of others in perpetrating his crimes - that is why his right to liberty has been reigned in.

The justice system does not 'pay to those prisoners who feel aggrieved' on demand, but applies objective tests on a case by case basis to determine if the state has fallen short of the standards it is obliged to provide to all individuals, including those detained in prison.

It is not for the legal system, which must be cold and objective if we are to have any confidence that it is not tainted by spin and politics, to dole out 'eye for an eye' vengeance-justice. We live in a modern society in the 21st Century; the sort of justice system Ms Roberts is advocating sounds like something out of the dark ages. Her views are that of a tabloid editorial and she would be wise to appreciate that things in life are not as black and white as those publications would have one believe.
David Hay, Glasgow

Ms Roberts is completely right with her views. I also live in Aberdeen and almost every day in the papers I note with disgust that prisoners are complaining that they are not being treated with respect and humanity. These prisoners have destroyed lives in the most degrading and violent manners. The prisoners have adopted the view that they are now victims and it's completely sickening.

Whilst the victims of their crimes live with the horrors they suffered, some prisoners are complaining that they don't get to watch enough TV, etc. Prison is a complete joke and these people should realise that they are there to be punished, not simply gain a more fruitful existence. When do the actual victims stop becoming victims? In our country it's when the prisoner goes to jail laughing all the way.
Samantha Reid, Aberdeen

I totally agree with Karen. Where has common sense gone? The minute you violate someone else's rights, you should lose yours. And by the way, if you don't want to slop out - don't get sent to prison! It's hardly rocket science, is it?
Gez, UK

I think it is an absolute disgrace that the same court system that sentences inmates for their crimes then compensates them for something like slopping out? I would be very interested to see the facts and figures about how many inmates have suffered life shattering consequences of slopping out and compare them with the amount of people/families that have suffered at their hands.

You make your own bed in this life, they make the choice to break the law. My sympathy lies with the law abiding citizens of this country who have to struggle through life living in poor conditions due to poor pay/unemployment or similar. It makes me sick that rapists, murderers and paedophiles are enjoying home comforts in our prisons simply because they decided to ruin someone else's life.
Ian McDonald, Hamilton

I couldn't agree more with Karen's views. Society is being turned on its head by "soft hearted do-gooders". Perhaps it is time to start getting tough on criminals and remove all their rights as soon as they are convicted. Instead we get an endless line of convicts claiming compensation for anything and everything.
Scott Maitland, West Lothian

Keeping one's cell clean cannot be degrading and that in my opinion includes emptying a chemical toilet. As for DVDs and other fun, I think that prisoners should be allowed to have such things if they have earned them (good behaviour, working in prison etc). The punishment is meant to be the loss of freedom and being allowed to watch DVDs at times won't change that. You still can't get out when you please.

What prisoners should be encouraged to do is studying and working (a big part of the prison fee should go to pay their debts including damages to the victims - this at least is the system in Finland). The big problem in my opinion is not the softness of prison but the fact that prison can act like a school for crime for younger inmates.
Pertti Virtanen, Finland

I am in complete agreement with the views of Karen Roberts. Firstly it infuriates me that prisoners have the audacity to even consider claiming compensation when, in my opinion, they lost any human rights when they carried out the crime but most of all I can't understand a system that even contemplates the idea of giving compensation to prisoners!
Sandra MacPherson, Edinburgh

In reading David Hay's comments, he fails to state the obvious - that whether prisoners (criminals) get any money or not, the solicitors will always get paid (usually by us taxpayers, via legal aid). It's in the solicitor's interest to keep encouraging these spurious "human rights" claims.
Scott Robertson, Edinburgh

Whilst I am not a supporter of treating those who violate society's laws inhumanely, I am concerned at the imbalance which appears to be pretty rife. The balance seems to have swung in favour of the criminal in terms of compensation. Nowhere near as much support goes into supporting victims.

A man rapes or murders, the family receive very little in comparison to what he will get for 'slopping out'. Nurses and home carers have to do this every day....for other people. If they claimed, they'd get nothing. I just feel that some balance needs to be brought back into the judicial system. Recently, a man faced jail for killing a swan. A woman who killed another woman in a car park gets community service! Hmmm.
KJ, Fife, Scotland

I agree totally with Karen. In my opinion these prisoners had a choice. It has always been well known that slopping out occurs in Scottish prisons. By choosing to break the law these prisoners were choosing to accept the consequences i.e. prison and all that it entails including slopping out. If they do not want to slop out then they should not have committed a crime. It is hardly a breach of your rights if you choose to do something and they chose to become prisoners by committing a criminal act. I hope that all their victims get help in suing them for damages and hopefully will be awarded the full amount they received for compensation plus 50% of their prison 'wages'.
Robina Gillan, Ayr

Karen's views are shared by many, violate someone's human rights and you should lose all rights to your own.
Steven Craig, Cowdenbeath Fife

At last! The voice of common sense. We have come to this stage by being tolerant of pathetic liberal thinking. Karen's article is incisive and reflective of what most in our society think, and it is what most think that is representative in society not what a few do-gooder liberals think we should think.
Rob, Glasgow

I always shudder when I read or hear of someone supporting the degradation and humiliation of fellow human beings. Very sad.
Kevin, Manchester, UK

I support Karen's views. The victims of crime should be getting the compensation not the prisoner.
Su, Ayrshire

I wholly agree with the fact that prisoners should not get compensation. I feel that although they are doing time for their crime, the sentences are far too lenient. Why should they get even more home comforts than they would if they were not in there in the first place?
Emma Short, Kilmarnock

What a mean-spirited and ill-informed rant. Has Ms Roberts visited these prisons for a true picture? Regardless of how many DVDs criminals get to watch inside, the simple fact is that they can't go anywhere and their liberty is taken from them. Not only that, but their lives are minutely regulated. Would that seem like a holiday camp if it happened to you? If I was housebound and all I could do was go through my CD collection, it would pall very quickly. As to slopping out, well there's no excuse for depriving fellow human beings of their dignity. Stuart Leggate is already paying his debt to society by being deprived of liberty for a long time. Yes, he had no heed for his victim's rights but he will suffer for it. We don't need to dehumanise ourselves by going further.
Jonathan, Edinburgh

I completely agree with Karen's article. Just to get some perspective for these people, and along the lines of this liberal attitude towards convicted criminals, why don't we set up a prisoner exchange programme with say, China, or perhaps Brazil and see how they cope with life there? I'm sure slopping out would be the least of their worries then.
Doug Chalmers, Aberdeen

I as a tax payer am quite content for prisoners to be banged up for a very long time and for them to slop out. Why they should be able to watch television and DVDs is beyond me. The function of prisons appears to have been forgotten. Sadly they are no longer seen as punishment, but as rehabilitation centres.

Whilst some rehabilitation needs to take place, punishment needs to be the majority function. I'd rather prisoners were given mailbags to sew and alleviate some financial burden from the prisons than put in a cell with a TV. They have it far too easy, I'm all for going back to the Victorian regimes.
Andrew, Edinburgh

I entirely agree with Karen's comments. Prisoners should have no rights whatsoever when in prison. They should lose all ability to claim for anything, they are there as a result of their own actions. If conditions in prison were made really hard, they wouldn't want to go back, they are better looked after and fed better than most pensioners. We need to go back to hard labour, that may sort a few out.
Lester Stenner, UK

I completely agree with Karen. Why should the tax payer pay for breaching their human rights? What about the rights of the victim?? As Karen says, prison should be a punishment, not a holiday camp. What sort of message does this send out to criminals? "Lets go rob that old lady and get sent to prison, its better than where we live".

These prisoners should be made to slop out, and do work for the community, after all, we are paying for their upkeep. I feel really sorry for the victims as their human rights have been breached but the offender doesn't pay them compensation.
Jamie Murray, Kirkcaldy

The compensation should not even make it to the inmates' accounts, it should go straight into the accounts of their victim(s) so they feel that they have paid, in part at least a small debt for their actions. Does this not make sense?
Derek Scougall, Falkirk

Personally I believe its high time the law in Europe changed and came to realise that one of the punishments that should exist once convicted is the removal of your human rights once in jail. Those laws were created to protect the innocent, once proven guilty beyond doubt, you're not exactly innocent
Daniel Trimm, Birmingham