Breaking Rocks for yobs

Anybody who has just hit the 'quote' button by way of replying to Andrew, please do me a favour and delete it before I have to. We do not want off-topic flaming being posted or repeated on CF.

Let's get on with the topic please.

[ian@huth]

What has to be considered is that people offend for different reasons and those reasons should be taken into consideration when considering their "punishment".

There are many reasons why people offend. Some do it of their own free will whilst others may be bullied into it.

Some people offend because they do not recognise that what they are doing is wrong whilst others know that it is wrong but still offend because many others do the same and there is little chance of getting found out and punished. Some offend and get caught but the punishment is only a slight inconvenience and there isn't really any social stigma attached to having commited the offence.

Just take two subjects that have been discussed to death in these forums. Breaking speed limits and the downloading / uploading of copyright material. Both of these are offences but many forum members don't regard them as such and continue to breach the law and openly brag about the fact. What signals does this give to the young? Basically the young are being taught that breach of the law doesn't matter if you think the law is not for you or you are likely to get away with the offence.

My view is that any breach of the law should be punished with action that makes the offender think twice about re-offending with any fines levied being really felt by the offender.

All offenders should be analysed to see why they had committed the crime and punishment levied in line with this. No two offenders for the same crime have committed it for the same reason and will respond to the same punishment.

Many years ago I used to work next door to an open prison and was amazed at the standard of living the prisoners had. For many of them they were having a much better standard of living than they had previously had before being committed. Is this a punishment and a deterrent? Quite the opposite I would say.

Tagging and working for the community should be more used with prisons being the dark, dank, bare, stone floored places that nobody would ever want to return to. Give the tagged prisoners a uniform by all means. If they are not willing to abide by the laws of the land then why should they have anonimity.

[AndrewJ]

I said what needed to be said, come back soon Chimera and perhaps we can have a discussion not a one sided lecture.

I still think giving those who commit lesser crimes although all crime are serious should be given proper training while in prison, because lets face it they are normally unskilled in most areas hence the commiting of crime. They would get traning in building, electrical, gas supply etc, and then would repay the community buy helping repair and rebuild and even build new places, they would be paid a percentage of the wage to there families and a percentage to there bank account upon release. There sentence would not be cut down by doing this form of rehabilitation as they are there to serve time for a crime, but they can at least learn skills and be able to put back into the society what they was taking away.

That myself would be a better use then stocking up prisions with people doing nothing.

Any better ideas rather then just your wrong mad quotes?

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

I said what needed to be said, come back soon Chimera and perhaps we can have a discussion not a one sided lecture.

I still think giving those who commit lesser crimes although all crime are serious should be given proper training while in prison, because lets face it they are normally unskilled in most areas hence the commiting of crime. They would get traning in building, electrical, gas supply etc, and then would repay the community buy helping repair and rebuild and even build new places, they would be paid a percentage of the wage to there families and a percentage to there bank account upon release. There sentence would not be cut down by doing this form of rehabilitation as they are there to serve time for a crime, but they can at least learn skills and be able to put back into the society what they was taking away.

That myself would be a better use then stocking up prisions with people doing nothing.

Any better ideas rather then just your wrong mad quotes?

Perhaps criminals should be made to dig trenches along all the roads of Britain and get the areas that currently do not have cable onto the network.

Dunno what went on before - and I don't want to - but I agree with the thrust of what Andrew says in his last post. It's no good just locking people up (and we now have the highest prison population ever) if we are not going to prevent them returning to crime on release. The prison regime needs to punish - and loss of liberty is pretty punitive to my mind - and rehabilitate. If we do not provide opportunities for prisoners to receive useful education and to address their behaviour then all we are doing is continuing a vicious cycle, not least because prison currently provides exemplary courses in Further Criminality.

As for Blears' chain gang style idea, it's bonkers, as I've come to expect from a Govt keen on sticking plaster solutions that look good in the right-leaning Press to which they seem increasingly subservient.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Perhaps criminals should be made to dig trenches along all the roads of Britain and get the areas that currently do not have cable onto the network.

Couldn't do a worse job than some of the contractors NTL use....


Actually, I don't think anyone here is AGAINST the idea of community service (although I am not sure having a line of prisoners breaking rocks would do any good). Even Graham has pointed out that it does seem to help rehabilitate prisoners (after all, if you ask someone to build something, they are more likely to take care of it when it's finished).

The issue here is whether to give them Uniforms, thus, presumably, marking them as community service personnel. I personally have no objection to this, as I don't see that it makes them stand out any more than a uniform for a job would. Graham, obviously disagrees.

[AndrewJ]

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Perhaps criminals should be made to dig trenches along all the roads of Britain and get the areas that currently do not have cable onto the network.

Well said that man , although they would be trained and a wage paid to there families who are without there husband boyfriend w/e. or the next depenant.

All this work would be supervised daily hourly by trained staff again taking people of the dole queue for guard duty.

The council tried something here they permitted a race track for kids on those battered trail bikes to use them there with no rules just they aint responsible.

Amazing crime dropped and also kids had a new interest, building bikes, yes we still have crime but it worked oh and get this.

The track was built with juvenille shoplifters etc while doing time for there crimes.

Originally Posted by scastle

Graham, obviously disagrees.

So do I. What purpose would these uniforms serve? Blears says so penance can be seen to be paid. Sounds like she would like to bring back stocks. Identify people in such uniforms and they may find it harder to secure employment in the area and get on with their lives. They will also no doubt be abused by people who will have no idea what their crime has been (and here it could be something like tram-fare dodging which escalates to non-payment of fines, to breaking rocks down Cheetham Hill Road. So you're too poor to pay the tram, too poor to pay the subsequent fine and then are subject to abuse from bus loads of schoolkids and Daily Mail readers (just threw that in to annoy the usual suspects! ) as they do their Community Service.

Labour needs to be addressing the wider issues instead of dreaming up such retrograde ideas.

[Ramrod]

Excellent post there m8!

Originally Posted by BBKing

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.

You can flippantly laugh but I have had family members hauled off for execution by communists and both of my parents lost their homes to communism.

However, history does tend to show that suddenly increasing inequality and freedom (particularly freedom of movement) in a state does lead to rocketing crime

We haven't had a sudden introduction of inequality here in the UK and as for using the USSR and RSA as examples--the problem there was that both of those countries had opressive govts(and more importantly, security services) removed overnight which has predictably resulted in the crime rates going up-less to do with inequality and more to do with a lack of proper policing

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.

Better education needed-absolutely agree Good jobs however cannot be magicked up (especially without also increasing the wealth of those who are dolling out the jobs-bit of a vicious circle really

Lack of proper upbringing - case study......<snip>

Personally, I don't think that he got a proper upbringing (for several reasons)
__________________

Originally Posted by andyl

So you're too poor to pay the tram

Then you shouldn't be on the tram in the first place

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Then you shouldn't be on the tram in the first place

Shouldn't be too poor to use the tram. Tough on the causes of crime!!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by andyl

Shouldn't be too poor to use the tram.

Thats not any kind of answer............
__________________

Anyway, which is it that causes crime? Poverty or inequality? Because if we were all equally poor there would still be plenty of people turning to crime.........

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Anyway, which is it that causes crime? Poverty or inequality? Because if we were all equally poor there would still be plenty of people turning to crime.........

Many more reasons than that.

Some are bullied into crime.

Some like the challenge of seeing if they can get away with it.

Some because they think the law is wrong.

Some because it is less stressful being inside than having the stress of everyday life.

The list goes on but only one thing is certain. There will always be crime.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by andyl

So do I. What purpose would these uniforms serve? Blears says so penance can be seen to be paid. Sounds like she would like to bring back stocks. Identify people in such uniforms and they may find it harder to secure employment in the area and get on with their lives. They will also no doubt be abused by people who will have no idea what their crime has been (and here it could be something like tram-fare dodging which escalates to non-payment of fines, to breaking rocks down Cheetham Hill Road. So you're too poor to pay the tram, too poor to pay the subsequent fine and then are subject to abuse from bus loads of schoolkids and Daily Mail readers (just threw that in to annoy the usual suspects! ) as they do their Community Service.

True, you would get the locals coming out to wind up the people doing community service, but I don't think anyone is asking for the uniforms to be worn for a long time. Only while performing the actual community service.

Labour needs to be addressing the wider issues instead of dreaming up such retrograde ideas.

Also true. However such schemes may cost a lot of money and take a while to implement, so, while they may be excellent ideas, our publicity-hungry government is not going to be interested. After all, getting uniforms makes them appear to be doing something now, and getting "results" in a few months. Other ideas (such as changing education in schools, and National Service -not that I am suggesting either) may well work, but we wouldn't start seeing any impact for several years.

Call me cynical if you want, but I get the distinct impression that our government don't want to wait years for a fix. They want something cheap that gets them publicity now. Let a future government deal with the problems.. Note, I am not specifically having a go at Blair here (although I don't like him and did not vote Labour), as I believe it's something all politicians suffer from (after all, they're only in office five years, why spend billions on a scheme that will take longer than that and have some future government take the credit when they get results?)

Originally Posted by Paul M

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

Oh ye GODS Paul M, will you *PLEASE* actually take the time and effort to *READ* what I am writing! This sort of thing is *precisely* what I am talking about!!

What I *actually* said was

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

I am objecting to people *misrepresenting* the viewpoint and beliefs of myself and others who support human rights by claiming that the above is what we would do.

You, however, have chosen to mis-read or mis-represent this as "if you don't agree with my POV there's no point in discussing it, which is *NOT* what I have said, nor would *ever* say!!

Who claimed that then ?

You did: I quote your exact words...

Originally Posted by Paul M

[...]the human rights brigade object - we can't degrade the criminals (shame about the victims).

Now if you your comment "we can't degrade the criminals (shame about the victims)" does not imply that those who support human rights only care about the rights of the criminals and not the victims, please tell me what it *does* mean, because I can't see another way of interpreting it.

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

Now you're getting desperate and, once again, you set up a straw man argument that is nothing to do with what *I* have said.

As I have said in previous threads, I am in favour of *rehabilitating* the criminals, not simply making them suffer. One has a much better chance of making society a better place, the other is more likely to make "better" criminals.

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.

Whoops, there goes another straw man...!

Um, okay.

See above.
__________________

Originally Posted by Incognitas

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 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?

Damn right!

It is regrettable that we still see people who seem to think that "rights" should only apply to those whom *they* like/ approve of/ think are "nice people", but anyone else who is "****" doesn't deserve the same rights.

There are plenty of warnings from history of what happens when one group starts treating another as "not human"...

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Thats not any kind of answer............

It's my kind of answer thank you very much My partner works with disadvantaged young people, a number of whom have been done for fare-dodging. They have pitiful incomes and cannot afford the tram (which is expensive) and yet still need to travel. So they bunk it, get caught, get fined. That's fantastically illogical. They can't afford the fare, so you fine them even more.

And people do get jailed for non-payment of fines, which ends up costing everybody more and achieves nothing.

Anyway, which is it that causes crime? Poverty or inequality? Because if we were all equally poor there would still be plenty of people turning to crime.........[/QUOTE] There is no causal relationship between either poverty or inequality, but there is a strong correlation. Poverty is a relative thing but I personally find it fairly depressing that we live in a country where single people can earn millions in one year (Adam Crozier just got £3m in bonuses for his graft at the Post Office) and yet we have people living in squalid, damp houses with little in the way of life opportunities. Whilst society is willing to countenance such desparate conditions in what is, after all, a very rich country, then it will get the citizens it deserves.