Breaking Rocks for yobs

[Shaun]

Maybe I've got things ars e about tit, but I always considered prison/community service to be a punishment, (in a retrospective way). "You do the crime, you do the time", not let's treat Johnny nice so he doesn't do it again. If the punishment isn't nice that should be deterrent enough, shouldn't it?

Same old story - someone comes up with a new way to punish offenders - the human rights brigade object - we can't degrade the criminals (shame about the victims). We must be into double figures with these threads by now, all going nowhere.

Originally Posted by Shaun

Maybe I've got things ars e about tit, but I always considered prison/community service to be a punishment, (in a retrospective way). "You do the crime, you do the time", not let's treat Johnny nice so he doesn't do it again. If the punishment isn't nice that should be deterrent enough, shouldn't it?

the navy/army/air force - can be a good thing?

Originally Posted by scastle

You appear to have made several assumptions there. First that Chimaera was referring to everyone who supports human rights (she never said that, and I don't think she was)

I suggest you re-read post #30 and look at Chimaera's comments in the context of a reply to Tiger Sefi's remark.

and second, that Chimaera was in the "String 'em up" group

You have assumed I was including her in that group, but I didn't say that, nor is it implied in context.
__________________

Originally Posted by Shaun

Why not, what's the percentage of the population with a photographic memory?

What's the proportion who figure out that they can stuff a few bits of paper into their clothes/ boots/ underwear (or maybe even take photos with a mobile phone) and not get caught?
__________________

Originally Posted by Shaun

Maybe I've got things ars e about tit, but I always considered prison/community service to be a punishment, (in a retrospective way). "You do the crime, you do the time", not let's treat Johnny nice so he doesn't do it again. If the punishment isn't nice that should be deterrent enough, shouldn't it?

Except that increasing sentences or the severity of punishment has time and again been shown *not* to deter crime, nor rehabilitate offenders such that they won't do it again.

And, once again, we see the implication in the phrase "treat Johnny nice" that somehow those who support human rights and dignity would let everybody out of jail or feather-bed them or make prison like a "holiday camp" etc etc.

Until people realise that this is not the case it seems pointless trying to have a sensible discussion on this topic.
__________________

Originally Posted by Paul M

Same old story - someone comes up with a new way to punish offenders - the human rights brigade object - we can't degrade the criminals (shame about the victims). We must be into double figures with these threads by now, all going nowhere.

Same old story: someone claims that people who support the human rights don't give a damn about victims (like anyone's *ever* said that), someone asserts that punishing criminals is the only way to make society a better/ safer/ more civilised place (why hasn't it worked so far, then?), the "string them up" brigade just want to make people suffer even more (like that's going to make the world a better place), straw men are set up and knocked down (like that's going to help a reasoned debate...)

Originally Posted by Graham

Until people realise that this is not the case it seems pointless trying to have a sensible discussion on this topic.

So .... unless we agree with your view, discussion is pointless ?

Originally Posted by Graham

Same old story: someone claims that people who support the human rights don't give a damn about victims

Who claimed that then ?

Originally Posted by Graham

someone asserts that punishing criminals is the only way to make society a better/ safer/ more civilised place (why hasn't it worked so far, then?)

Someone else asserts that not punishing criminals is the only way to make society a better/ safer/ more civilised place - that's working well isn't it

Originally Posted by Graham

the "string them up" brigade just want to make people suffer even more (like that's going to make the world a better place)

The "do gooder" brigade just want to slap them on the wrist and say 'please don't do it again' - Like that's going to make the world a better place.

Originally Posted by Graham

straw men are set up and knocked down (like that's going to help a reasoned debate...)

Um, okay.

I actually do dislike the way that those of us who strongly believe in rights for EVERYONE get stigmatised on this site as being for criminals and against victims.

I'm most definitely not against any one group.

I'm actually against having human rights for all and then not applying them to whatever group the media currently have an issue with. What is the point in having any form of human rights under those circumstances?How many innocent people have been arrested and then released?If they had no rights they may well still be in prison.Those who advocate removing rights for criminals need to remember that sometimes mistakes are made by the police and judiciary and that there is a need for checks and balance.

[Chimaera]

/\ /\ What Coggy said!
Seems to me that any posting on here will get picked apart and slagged off by a certain forum member, think I'll just back off from the forum now and save him the bother.

Graham, when oh when will you stop posting so aggressively? There is simply no need for it, noone else I know on this forum posts so aggressively and I suggest you tone it down, no infact I request you tone down or further action will be taken. A member deciding to step away from the site because of the actions of another, I don't take too kind to.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Chopping their hands off or putting them up against a wall or just giving them longer jail sentences would also "make an example" of them.

Excuse me? Who mentioned all that? Not me...

Copyright the Daily Mail editorial (although in slightly different words)...

So what? That doesn't prove that my statement is wrong......

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Graham

I suggest you re-read post #30 and look at Chimaera's comments in the context of a reply to Tiger Sefi's remark.

I did. Where did she say, or imply, all of them would? Based up experience, I would say SOME of them would change their tune. In my experience, no one knows exactly how they would react in any given situation when subjected with violence unless it has happened to them. It's likely that not all members of human rights groups have experience violence against themselves or a family member, so they do not know for sure how they would react.

As I said, it appears that you assumed she meant everyone. While I do believe it is true that SOME people would change their mind, not ALL would..

You have assumed I was including her in that group, but I didn't say that, nor is it implied in context.

Why attack her then?

Whatever happened to 'tough on the causes of crime'? Since that statement Youth Service funding has been cut, for example. And social inequality has widened not narrowed.

This Government has got itself stuck into a habit of stupid, kneejerk responses, this being just the latest. Dunno why they don't just let Paul Dacre succeed Blair and be done with it.

[Bex]

Originally Posted by Escapee

Well not quite, but I do go along with the idea of making young offenders work to the benefit of the community. I see no reason why they shouldn't wear uniforms like mentioned in the article, it would possibly bring shame on a percentage who wouldn't want to be in that situation again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4548253.stm

Quote: Ms Blears also said she wanted parents to enforce sensible bedtimes for children and restore "structure" to family life, such as eating meals together.

Oh thats the answer then, early to bed and eat meals with your parents and you cant go far wrong.

i think the idea in itself is a good one. young offenders, might just get something out of putting back into the community.. but then again they might not.

on the comment about family life.. i think that it does play a big role in people's outlooks on life... socialisation does have an impact on kids, whether we realise it or not. that mainly comes from family life to begin with and later schools come into it (im not getting into a discussion on the state of schools)
kids need proper patterns, believe me it does help them, i'm not saying that if you don't give them patterns then they turn into bullies, thugs etc but it will have an impact on them.

as for what else has occured in this thread, that is the exact reason why i tend to keep away from "current affairs" threads. i am fed up feeling like i have to put a disclaimer on any opinion i post. maybe we all need to put it into our sigs "the opinions i express are just that opinions". when i last checked this forum encouraged freedom of speech, being criticised or "attacked" (as someone previously has put it) is not on. yes we will have differing opinions but in my eyes that is a good thing as it means that we can have a discussion, yes a discussion, no slanging matches or personal attacks. i think it is sad that the attitudes of some are causing people to not want to be involved, and i hope this does not continue.

[BBKing]

The thing with asking Graham to find a solution is that the problem that you're asking him to find a solution to doesn't actually exist. Hence it's a bit harsh asking him to solve it.

5-'inequality creates crime'--that's such a load of bull!--are you a communist?

Nyet, tovarich. Glad to lay your mind at rest there. Remember to check under your bed tonight and ring Joe McCarthy if you see anyone you suspect of Bolshevism.

Criminals create crime and a lack of 'proper' upbringing creates criminals. There will always be inequality- deal with it

Thank you, Mr. Mackay of Slade Prison. If you read back, I did say that *reducing* inequality should be an aim, it's quite evident that inequality always exists and it's Utopian (and therefore silly) to pretend otherwise.

I should probably have written 'inequality + freedom = crime' since it's perfectly possible to have a society with low crime, great inequality and little freedom (like Singapore). Likewise you can have societies with low crime, relative equality and little freedom (like the USSR). It does seem impossible to pull off the triple (low crime+inequality+freedom), although Japan might be an interesting example (there's a lot of organised crime there, of course).

However, history does tend to show that suddenly increasing inequality and freedom (particularly freedom of movement) in a state does lead to rocketing crime, for which the obvious examples are Russia and (to some extent) South Africa. There is a wealth of literature from both economists and sociologists that investigates crime as it relates to inequality (of many sorts) and to dismiss this as 'bull' is a little simplistic. Go and read some of it.

Having said 'don't take examples from the US judicial system', I'm now going to take examples from the US, but from academic studies, rather than punishments. I hope this distinction is obvious!

http://www.crime.smartlibrary.org/Ne...m?segment=1664

A statistical analysis of the 125 largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. supports the idea that economic inequalities between blacks and whites are a source of frustration and lead to violent crime.

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/301/301lect07.htm

ECONOMIC INEQUALITY
Economic inequality is usually measured as income inequality, and mathematically using features of the Lorenz curve, specifically four coefficients: the Gini, Mehran, Bonferroni, and Piesch. The Gini coefficient is the most commonly seen one in criminology, and it weights extreme outcomes in inequality; the Piesch, high incomes; and the Mehran and Bonferroni, low incomes. The weightings are done to the tails of the distribution. The Gini coefficient ranges from "0" where everyone is fairly equal to "1" where one person has all the wealth and everyone else has none. Gini indexes of as low as 0.10 have reached statistical significance in relationship to crime. The U.S. average Gini is 0.25 and rising.

I suggest reading the whole of that second one, actually, it's quite short and packed with interesting stuff. It also quotes both Milton Friedman (right-wing proto-Thatcherite economist) and Karl Marx, so there's a bit of balance for you.

Criminals create crime, but society creates criminals. It's society's problem, and the structure of society (particularly the economic structure) undeniably affects the production of criminals. Two obvious things are reducing unemployment and increasing minimum wages. Those have *direct* effects on reducing inequality and therefore reducing crime rates. However, the jobs have to be good jobs, rewarding and well-paid. Better education helps, too.

http://english.sina.com/china/1/2005/0311/24184.html

BEIJING, Mar 11 (AP) -- Weak funding for education and a widening gap between rich and poor is fueling a major rise in juvenile crime in China, a member of China's national legislature was quoted on Friday as saying.

Almost 19 percent of criminal suspects in 2003 were juveniles, up from 11.8 percent in 2000, the state-run newspaper China Daily and other media quoted lawmaker Huang Jingjun as saying.

Huang said rising youth crime was strongly related to the widening gap in recent years between Chinese who have accumulated vast wealth and those who have seen their incomes stagnate, or have fallen into poverty.

Lack of proper upbringing - case study. The father of a close friend was brought up by parents (military ones) who stayed together, sent him to public school, imposed iron discipline, regular corporal punishment for transgressions all in a middle-class (even upper-middle) environment. He ended up with a 13 year sentence for an extremely serious crime (non-violent, however). What caused him to choose (quite deliberately) a criminal profession?

[AndrewJ]

[Mod Edit (Chris T)] Personal attacks against forum members are bad enough, when they aren't even related to the topic it's completely out of line. Stop it, now.

[etccarmageddon]

it's just words on a screen - if you dont like it then just remember it's only words.