So I see that Abu Hamza is currently turning up to court in the US without his hook.
On the one hand, I can certainly see that he could theoretically so some damage with it. On the other, he’s had it for decades. It’s basically part of him. He’s never caused any problems (so far as I know) in English prisons with it.
Is he now to be hookless or will he be getting it back in short order? What are the rules?
Tee hee
Ok, what I can see is that Abu Hamza cannot have his hook. It sounds like this is a new rule.
The best commentary I can find is this:
(d)Correctional authorities should house and manage prisoners with physical disabilities, including temporary disabilities, in a manner that provides for their safety and security. If necessary, housing should be designed for use by prisoners with disabilities; such housing should be in the most integrated setting appropriate for such prisoners.
To me that sounds like he gets no hook.
So, did he have to sling it, cause that is what we in the UK told him to do 
There’s no real need for a hook on a prosthetic. It may be a handy tool, but it’s not medically necessary for the amputee to functionally do most acts of daily living. So off comes the hook, when they come into my prison! Less weaponizeable accessories can be found if necessary.
I’ve already had one patient weaponize his ankle brace and assault staff with it. He did fine without the brace, since he didn’t have to walk around much in the segregation cell.
Is there not, however, an argument to be made that he needs the hook, having lived with it for so long? Other alternatives may be avaliable but this is what he knows. Could take him years to be as adaept with whatever the new alternative wil be, not to mention it will costs loads I would think.
And he hasn’t attacked anyone with it overe here so it seems unlikely he would suddenly start doing so over there.
No, there really isn’t.
I think it wouldn’t necessarily just be worried of him weaponizing it - might having a potential weapon make him a target? I don’t know how easy it would be for another inmate to forcibly detach the hook and take it from him, but I imagine some might think of it.
People are more flexible than that, and alternative assistive devices are not that expensive.
As for trusting him to behave regarding potential weapons in prison, I’d trust him as far as I could comfortably spit a rat. That’s my default level of trust towards any inmate with a potential weapon.
So they would take away my crutches and give me a permanent wheelchair? [Canadian crutches are effectively 4 foot long tonfas]
I get what you’re saying but doesn’t the eight year or whatever time period of him not using it as a weapon count for something?
So how flexible are people with totally different prosthetics then? I have assumed that it takes months to years to get aquainted with one, is that not the case?
I would think that the risk of someone else using ot as a wepon would counter any amount of good behavior on his part.
I’ve also learned from reading threads here that mental health for prisoners seldom improves during their confinement. A man who is safe for his first three years may not still be safe in year four.
ETA: Apologies for the guesses - I just realized this is GQ.
Not really, no. Potential weapons in prison are simply not a good idea.
I’m surprised that a hook would be allowed in a prison anywhere in the world. Prison guards are usually concerned that inmates convert a toothbrush or a comb into a deadly weapon. Having somebody walk around with two metal hooks must be absolutely out of the question.
I think you are confused as to meaning of the word “need.”
No, crutches qualify as medically necessary. So you’d keep them. Until you weaponize them, anyway.
A hook isn’t medically necessary.
Still dangerous. The person who needs the crutches might be a mild-mannered individual, but a fellow inmate could easily snatch them and use them as a weapon.
No argument from me on that. But we can’t remove all risks.
Of course, the prisoner is not someone they are going to make special exception for. So, if they can justify removing something that is “nice to have” for him, they will justify it.
After all, military prison has so far justified keeping Bradley Manning in solitary, naked, with nothing but a “blanket” like a thick rubber pad, 24-hour-a-day lights-on - “for his own protection”. I think for some foreigner accused of an actual violent crime, they can do whatever they feel like.
Just write Wild Ass Guess (WAG) in front of whatever you say, within reason and non “jabby,” and Your AIC.
How about a rubber hand with “kung-fu grip”?