Paying Iranian Clerics To Hate Us
Religion & Spirituality0 min ago
'secure College'
What do we think about this, dubious at best, idea? Who can possibly think a giant child prison for children with children is a good idea?
https:/
https:/
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by kvalidir. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The Youth Justice System in the UK is in radical need of overhaul.
Youth Courts and the penalties available to Magistrates are a joke. If you doubt that’s true have a wander along to your local Magistrates’ court on youth day. You will not be able to sit in the courtroom, of course, because Youth courts are held in secret and nobody other than the participants and court officers is allowed in (one of the major shortcomings of the youth justice system, particularly if you are a victim). But you will be able to observe the behaviour of the “children” who are invited to court to sort out their problems (for adults that would read “summonsed or bailed to appear to answer charges“). You will note that far from providing a salutory lesson to them of the consequences of their law breaking you will see that it is a jolly day out for them where they get to meet their like minded mates. They are able to pass the time smoking on the court’s doorstep, discussing their “misbehaviour” (and no doubt sharing tips). After having been dealt with they emerge with details of their latest “referral order” (just about the only penalty available to the court unless they have been really, really naughty).
The details of this proposal to incarcerate some of them (and it will only be a very few and believe me they will be really serious offenders) are a bit sketchy from the article. The only criticisms I would have from the details I’ve read is that (a) the proposals seem to care more about treating the miscreants‘ “complex problems“ than simply keeping them locked up to protect the public (b) the establishments should not accommodate both sexes and (c) there should be no facilities for the babies of female inmates to be accommodated. If the girl’s family cannot take care of the baby (and that’s probably unlikely because much of the cause of youth crime is that the parents of the youths cannot care for their own children properly, let along their grandchildren) then it should be taken into care and ultimately adopted
However, it is not how they are held that concerns me too much as I have rather more concern for the victims of their “misbehaviour”. It is the threshold that needs to be crossed to get them there. It is currently far too high.
The Howard League for Penal Reform is the last organisation I would ask to comment on such proposals. It’s rather like asking a lion for his views on the vegetarianism..
There! That should put the cat among the pigeons !!!
Youth Courts and the penalties available to Magistrates are a joke. If you doubt that’s true have a wander along to your local Magistrates’ court on youth day. You will not be able to sit in the courtroom, of course, because Youth courts are held in secret and nobody other than the participants and court officers is allowed in (one of the major shortcomings of the youth justice system, particularly if you are a victim). But you will be able to observe the behaviour of the “children” who are invited to court to sort out their problems (for adults that would read “summonsed or bailed to appear to answer charges“). You will note that far from providing a salutory lesson to them of the consequences of their law breaking you will see that it is a jolly day out for them where they get to meet their like minded mates. They are able to pass the time smoking on the court’s doorstep, discussing their “misbehaviour” (and no doubt sharing tips). After having been dealt with they emerge with details of their latest “referral order” (just about the only penalty available to the court unless they have been really, really naughty).
The details of this proposal to incarcerate some of them (and it will only be a very few and believe me they will be really serious offenders) are a bit sketchy from the article. The only criticisms I would have from the details I’ve read is that (a) the proposals seem to care more about treating the miscreants‘ “complex problems“ than simply keeping them locked up to protect the public (b) the establishments should not accommodate both sexes and (c) there should be no facilities for the babies of female inmates to be accommodated. If the girl’s family cannot take care of the baby (and that’s probably unlikely because much of the cause of youth crime is that the parents of the youths cannot care for their own children properly, let along their grandchildren) then it should be taken into care and ultimately adopted
However, it is not how they are held that concerns me too much as I have rather more concern for the victims of their “misbehaviour”. It is the threshold that needs to be crossed to get them there. It is currently far too high.
The Howard League for Penal Reform is the last organisation I would ask to comment on such proposals. It’s rather like asking a lion for his views on the vegetarianism..
There! That should put the cat among the pigeons !!!
Believe me, OG, when (or more usually if) they ever have a custodial sentence imposed they will have had all manner of restorative and rehabilitative solutions made available to them. Leaving aside the cases where serious offences have been committed (such as murder, manslaughter, rape, certain sexual offences and firearms offences) people under 18 (so, for example, a six foot fifteen stone 17 year old) are invariably dealt with by a "Referral Order". Only if they are considered "persistent offenders" can the sentence be racked up to the more onerous Youth Rehabilitation Order or possibly a detention order. "Persistent Offender" is not defined in law, but here's some guidance:
"A young offender is certainly likely to be found to be persistent (and, in relation to a custodial sentence, the test of being a measure of last resort is most likely to be satisfied) where the offender has been convicted of, or made subject to a pre-court disposal that involves an admission or finding of guilt in relation to, imprisonable offences on at least 3 occasions in the past 12 months.
Even where a young person is found to be a persistent offender, a court is not obliged to impose the custodial sentence or youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance or fostering that becomes available as a result of that finding. The other tests continue to apply and it is clear that Parliament expects custodial sentences to be imposed only rarely on those aged 14 or less"
It is hard enough for Magistrates to find a matter so serious as to impose a custodial sentence on an adult. But you can see from the above guidance that even persistent offenders aged 16 and 17 are very unlikely to be detained. Some of these people are utter nuisances in some neighbourhoods. But residents are unlikely to see them taken out of circulation (and so provide them some respite from their activities) even for a brief spell. And this is because of deficiencies in a Youth Justice System which place more emphasis on the welfare of the young criminals than it does for the well being of their innocent victims.
"A young offender is certainly likely to be found to be persistent (and, in relation to a custodial sentence, the test of being a measure of last resort is most likely to be satisfied) where the offender has been convicted of, or made subject to a pre-court disposal that involves an admission or finding of guilt in relation to, imprisonable offences on at least 3 occasions in the past 12 months.
Even where a young person is found to be a persistent offender, a court is not obliged to impose the custodial sentence or youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance or fostering that becomes available as a result of that finding. The other tests continue to apply and it is clear that Parliament expects custodial sentences to be imposed only rarely on those aged 14 or less"
It is hard enough for Magistrates to find a matter so serious as to impose a custodial sentence on an adult. But you can see from the above guidance that even persistent offenders aged 16 and 17 are very unlikely to be detained. Some of these people are utter nuisances in some neighbourhoods. But residents are unlikely to see them taken out of circulation (and so provide them some respite from their activities) even for a brief spell. And this is because of deficiencies in a Youth Justice System which place more emphasis on the welfare of the young criminals than it does for the well being of their innocent victims.
You emphasise my point exactly, Sandy.
Attempts at rehabilitation for youths come long, long before they are ever sentenced to detention. When these attempts fail and the time has come "as a last resort" to detain them they are usually so out of control that no rehabilitation will help them. But still their needs and requirements are considered.
Early intervention is needed with robust punative sentences laced with rehabilitation and that's precisely what our Youth Justice System fails to provide.
Attempts at rehabilitation for youths come long, long before they are ever sentenced to detention. When these attempts fail and the time has come "as a last resort" to detain them they are usually so out of control that no rehabilitation will help them. But still their needs and requirements are considered.
Early intervention is needed with robust punative sentences laced with rehabilitation and that's precisely what our Youth Justice System fails to provide.
Well maybe the system catches them too late then. After all my impression is that young folk as assumed to be so thick they can not understand responsibility or expect to know right from wrong. I don't know the rules but is it 10 or 17 before they are considered normal and can be treated as if they have some kind of moral inkling ? If wrongdoing was caught and appropriately contered early enough it might help.
But maybe we digress from the original OP. I personally do not consider it fundamentally inhumane to allow a mother to serve her time with her child with her. Is the author saying it would be better if they were forced to be apart ?
But maybe we digress from the original OP. I personally do not consider it fundamentally inhumane to allow a mother to serve her time with her child with her. Is the author saying it would be better if they were forced to be apart ?
The age of criminal responsibility is 10, OG. Children under that age are presumed to be incapable of committing an offence.
Prior to 1998, a child aged between 10 and 14 was presumed to be incapable of committing an offence unless the prosecution were able to prove that the child knew the difference between right and wrong. Now, however, children aged between 10 and 17 are capable of committing offences and it is not possible for a child to avoid liability by showing he does not know the difference between right and wrong.
I most certainly do not believe that it is in the child's (that is the baby's) best interest that they are accommodated with the young mother whilst she is serving a sentence of detention. It's another argument entirely but I would go so far as to say that it would usually be in the best interests of most babies born of very young mothers (not only those sentenced to detention) if they were removed from them entirely and placed with adoptive parents. Few children under 16 are capable of raising a child and unless there is considerable and competent support from the wider family the child would be better off elsewhere.
The needs of the mother come a very distant second in these circumstances and it is the baby's best interests that should be paramount here. Those interests are not best served by being left with a very young mother.
However, as I said, that is a debate for another day. As far as this question goes girls under 16 should not have facilities provided for them to be with their babies whilst in detention.
Prior to 1998, a child aged between 10 and 14 was presumed to be incapable of committing an offence unless the prosecution were able to prove that the child knew the difference between right and wrong. Now, however, children aged between 10 and 17 are capable of committing offences and it is not possible for a child to avoid liability by showing he does not know the difference between right and wrong.
I most certainly do not believe that it is in the child's (that is the baby's) best interest that they are accommodated with the young mother whilst she is serving a sentence of detention. It's another argument entirely but I would go so far as to say that it would usually be in the best interests of most babies born of very young mothers (not only those sentenced to detention) if they were removed from them entirely and placed with adoptive parents. Few children under 16 are capable of raising a child and unless there is considerable and competent support from the wider family the child would be better off elsewhere.
The needs of the mother come a very distant second in these circumstances and it is the baby's best interests that should be paramount here. Those interests are not best served by being left with a very young mother.
However, as I said, that is a debate for another day. As far as this question goes girls under 16 should not have facilities provided for them to be with their babies whilst in detention.
Thank you for your replies everyone. My own personal opinion is it's a truly terrible idea. Girls who have recently given birth are at a turning point in their lives where given the right care and nurturing everything can change. To lock them up with hundreds of males in a scenario where offending behaviour is the norm is going to be nothing but destructive. Removing young mother's babies as a matter of routine is nothing short of despicable and will create the very monsters you are trying to reform. Small separate units for girls and their babies with mentoring and education, followed by pre release work placements and post release jobs. I know it sounds as if offenders will get preferential treatment to non offending people but many have a world of issues to recover from before they can become decent humans beings, and the other option is to discard them to a life of offending and wasted opportunities.
Never mind about them, pixie. What about a child, born of a child and brought up by a child (often on her own). What about the turning point in their lives (i.e. when they are born).
Sorry, but child pregnancies are good for nobody - not the mother, not the child and certainly not society as a whole. The old-fashioned notion of the age of consent, like many ancient customs, was introduced for a reason and that reason is still valid. For institutions to provide facilities for young criminal girls to be accommodated along with their children is foolish in the extreme.
Sorry, but child pregnancies are good for nobody - not the mother, not the child and certainly not society as a whole. The old-fashioned notion of the age of consent, like many ancient customs, was introduced for a reason and that reason is still valid. For institutions to provide facilities for young criminal girls to be accommodated along with their children is foolish in the extreme.
I tried kval, indeed I did. I home tutored 13, 14 and 15 year old pregnant girls. Some families had already introduced them to drugs and crime. In no case was the father (usually over 18) even challenged by the police of sexual offences against an under age girl. When is illegal not illegal? Some of the girls were in care, or being fostered. I was there, presumably to pick up the pieces after the baby was taken from a young girl.
Come along, jolly hockey sticks! Exams soon, let's discuss Women's Suffrage. Or, let's try understanding multiplication again. Baby uses 8 nappies a day. How many would you need for a week?
Romeo and Juliet? How is Shakespeare relevant in the present day?
16 soon? Can't teach you any longer. Foster parents need you to move out.
(This was 6 years ago)
Some girls kept their babies, moved into supported accommodation, carried on part time education, turned their lives around.
See them in the street very occasionally. Smiles all round.
Come along, jolly hockey sticks! Exams soon, let's discuss Women's Suffrage. Or, let's try understanding multiplication again. Baby uses 8 nappies a day. How many would you need for a week?
Romeo and Juliet? How is Shakespeare relevant in the present day?
16 soon? Can't teach you any longer. Foster parents need you to move out.
(This was 6 years ago)
Some girls kept their babies, moved into supported accommodation, carried on part time education, turned their lives around.
See them in the street very occasionally. Smiles all round.
That's too much of a generalisation, nj. There are undoubtedly many teenagers who would make better parents than older people (single or not). A baby, personality-wise, genetically, emotionally will be better off with its own mother. I'm not talking about abusive parents, of course. But aging doesn't necessarily make good parents.
Thank you Daisy, it's lovely to know there are people like you about and the successes must be very sweet indeed.
I'm assuming you know NJ WHY the present age of consent was brought in? It was to combat child prostitution, prior to that it was 13. It was nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing. I can appreciate that you feel young mothers are a bad idea, and I agree for the most part, but solving one problem would create a whole multitude more in many cases and imho no-one on earth has the right to take a child from it's mother by force purely because of her age. That is disgraceful.
I'm assuming you know NJ WHY the present age of consent was brought in? It was to combat child prostitution, prior to that it was 13. It was nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing. I can appreciate that you feel young mothers are a bad idea, and I agree for the most part, but solving one problem would create a whole multitude more in many cases and imho no-one on earth has the right to take a child from it's mother by force purely because of her age. That is disgraceful.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles20 mins ago
Crosswords28 mins ago
