Drunks to foot the bill for their safety

Every weekend evening on the streets of many UK cities and towns hard-pressed police officers (that would be better employed elsewhere) have to deal with numerous incidents of alcohol-fuelled misbehaviour as revellers leave entertainment venues.  These incidents often lead to arrests for public order offences and assaults.  Those intoxicated offenders are taken to police custody facilities to be dealt with. But how best to deal with an individual that is so intoxicated that he or she is unable to look after him or herself, yet cannot be classified as being in need of immediate medical care? What should be done with such a person when his or her personal safety is at risk?

If UK police chiefs have their way the problem will be solved by the introduction of privately run “drunk tanks.”  These facilities would be secure centres where drunken individuals could be taken to sober up overnight in a safe environment. When fully sober the individual would be released having stumped up some cash to pay for this unusual form of overnight accommodation.

The idea of “drunk tanks” has not been met with great enthusiasm in some quarters.  The Police Federation that represents rank and file police officers is worried about accountability.  Perhaps rightly so, as how is a police officer on the street to decide if an individual is just drunk or is also under the influence of an illegal drug.  Drug testing in such circumstances would be impossible.

Adrian Lee, the Chief Constable of Northamptonshire, has made known his opinion that police cells are not suitable places to hold drunken individuals that are “incapable of looking after themselves.”  He also believes that the cost of such detention should not be borne by the taxpayer.  He went on: “Why don’t we take them to a drunk cell owned by a commercial company and get the commercial company to look after them during the night until they are sober?”

“When that is over, we will issue them with a fixed penalty and the company will be able to charge them for their care, which would be at quite significant cost and that might be a significant deterrent.”