Heard it all now !!!!

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by greencreeper

Self-harm has nothing to do with suicide, and by preventing him from self-harming with sterile blades, the courts have made it more likely that his wounds will become infected, and more likely that he will commit suicide. The guy is in the wrong place to help him understand his self-harming. That said, there are very few right places - treatment and understanding of self-harming is very poor.

I don't find his request funny or a waste of money. If you do have a right to life, then you have a right to the thing that sustains that life - your body - and by extension, you have a right to die. For me, it's simple and clear. We complicate the issue because of fear and misguided compassion.

Maybe instead of actively encouraging him to self harm (which the Prison service would be by allowing him sterile blades), somebody should look at why he is self harming?

[greencreeper]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Erm ... I think you're juggling semantics just a little there GC. Survival is the most basic instinct of all life, so any mis-wiring of the brain that compromises that basic instinct is reasonably described as an instability in my view.

My definition of "mentally unstable" probably differs from most Self-harming doesn't compromise the self-preservation instinct. As I said a few posts back - it has nothing to do with suicide.

Originally Posted by scastle

Maybe instead of actively encouraging him to self harm (which the Prison service would be by allowing him sterile blades), somebody should look at why he is self harming?

You can't encourage someone to self-harm. I agree that he should be helped, but as I said a few posts back - support and understanding of self-harming is poor. Even by mental health standards. Prison isn't the right place for a start.

[Russ]

So would you agree that "mentally stable/unstable" is subjective?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by greencreeper

You can't encourage someone to self-harm. I agree that he should be helped, but as I said a few posts back - support and understanding of self-harming is poor. Even by mental health standards. Prison isn't the right place for a start.

Sorry, I phrased it badly. I was thinking that the state giving somebody who wants to self harm would appear to be encouraging him. In much the same way as giving somebody who is suicidal a knife. Note, I am not comparing suicide to self harm.

I actually agree with you. I can't comment on the motives of a self harmer, because the only "experience" I have of them is through television (which may or may not be accurate). But as I understand it, the act itself only provides a temporary release. It doesn't provide a cure.

[the_neurotic_cat]

Putting the mentally ill in prison reminds me of the debtor prisons in the 19th century. once they're in there the reasons for thier offending are simply agitated. life in prison can easily cause 'mentally healthy' people to go a little fruity, so god knows what it does to those who are considered 'mentally ill'.

... and the judge had the audacity to use the word 'civilised'! the only civilised prisons are the new 'secure therapeutic communitys' that are popping up. so, we are getting there, slowly.

[me283]

Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat

Putting the mentally ill in prison reminds me of the debtor prisons in the 19th century. once they're in there the reasons for thier offending are simply agitated. life in prison can easily cause 'mentally healthy' people to go a little fruity, so god knows what it does to those who are considered 'mentally ill'.

... and the judge had the audacity to use the word 'civilised'! the only civilised prisons are the new 'secure therapeutic communitys' that are popping up. so, we are getting there, slowly.

OK, either the guy is mentally ill, or he isn't. Either way he is a convicted criminal, so he should be in prison, or an institution such as Broadmoor (I believe that is a prison for the mentally ill?).

[the_neurotic_cat]

Originally Posted by me283

OK, either the guy is mentally ill, or he isn't. Either way he is a convicted criminal, so he should be in prison, or an institution such as Broadmoor (I believe that is a prison for the mentally ill?).

Oh yeah, I entirely agree that he, whatever he did, should be held in a secure facility so that his offending behaviour can be addressed safely. But prisons are for punishment, it's possible (although I have no idea) that whilst he's under his condition, whatever it is, he won't really understand why he's in there the same way we would if we were in there. A secure therapeutic community would help him to come to terms with whats he's done and perhaps make the punishment part of his sentence more effective. Anyway, just one of my brain pharts being vented