ChatterBank3 mins ago
I think the time has come . . .
15 Answers
to regain control of our streets and again to feel safe in our houses. We should, for a while, forget Brussels with its human rights issues, put back both sizes of feather dusters, one for lesser crimes and the other heavier one for the violent ones and actually DEAL with the problem. Those sentenced to prison and found to be drug-dependent should be dried out whilst inside; if this extends their sentence, so be it. Another way it could be handled is to begin their sentence only when they're free of the dependency. For the neanderthals roaming the streets burn the ASBOs and give them a course in a boot camp. A few months of harsh, though not brutal treatment may, just may build into them some form of back bone, self-reliance and respect. Any reoffenders would face double the original time there and so on. By all accounts we're at war with crime and the criminals and possibly once the crime rate is falling significantly and the prison population shrinking we could reinstate the softly-softly approach we've been adopting together with its appalling success rate.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LewPaper. 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.
Sadly this is the real world, so your massively simplistic arguments wouldn't quite work.
It's not just you - don't worry. Every time this argument comes up there are people saying the same kind of thing.
This is what they (and you perhaps) haven't grasped: the 'softly softly' approach, as you put it, isn't there because we're afraid of upsetting the poor criminals. It's there because studies conducted by people far more in-the-know that you and me suggest that rehabilitation makes reoffending (recidivism) less likely. And you must agree that's what we all want?
Do a google search for it and take your pick from the hundreds of papers on the subject. There's a good one done by a cross-party parliamentary committee.
If it's not working well enough, we need to take a look at whether we're giving that course of action our all. Rather than ripping it up and lurching to the furthest extreme.
And the stock response is usually, 'Well, if they knew that the punishment was X, I'm pretty sure they'd think twice before doing the crime.'
If only it worked like that. If only things were that simple.
It's not just you - don't worry. Every time this argument comes up there are people saying the same kind of thing.
This is what they (and you perhaps) haven't grasped: the 'softly softly' approach, as you put it, isn't there because we're afraid of upsetting the poor criminals. It's there because studies conducted by people far more in-the-know that you and me suggest that rehabilitation makes reoffending (recidivism) less likely. And you must agree that's what we all want?
Do a google search for it and take your pick from the hundreds of papers on the subject. There's a good one done by a cross-party parliamentary committee.
If it's not working well enough, we need to take a look at whether we're giving that course of action our all. Rather than ripping it up and lurching to the furthest extreme.
And the stock response is usually, 'Well, if they knew that the punishment was X, I'm pretty sure they'd think twice before doing the crime.'
If only it worked like that. If only things were that simple.
China Doll: Perhaps a stricter regime, more intimate body searches and the prohibition of visitors guilty of trafficking plus the automatic suspension, and possible sacking of any guard caught in possession might be order?
and Quinlad, I hear what you say, and I'm not at all worried, but quite plainly this course of action borne from book learning, social degrees and well-meaning individuals isn't working. It's all very well having well-educated well-meaning people telling us something SHOULD work, but if it isn't, and quite plainly it isn't we should consider other possibilities. And to be perfectly honest I'm sick to my teeth in having scenes of mob-rule and mob-violence on the telly everyday. I think we should forget the niceties civilisation has taught us and revert back to our gut instincts, if only for a short while; fight fire with fire, if you like. If then the WI brigade pipe up and say that would make us as bad as they are, so what? If it's a possible solution I don't have a problem with that. There's a war out there and possibly the harsher, the better, the quicker; THEN we can enjoy the benefits of normal civilisation we're trying so hard to enjoy now.
and Quinlad, I hear what you say, and I'm not at all worried, but quite plainly this course of action borne from book learning, social degrees and well-meaning individuals isn't working. It's all very well having well-educated well-meaning people telling us something SHOULD work, but if it isn't, and quite plainly it isn't we should consider other possibilities. And to be perfectly honest I'm sick to my teeth in having scenes of mob-rule and mob-violence on the telly everyday. I think we should forget the niceties civilisation has taught us and revert back to our gut instincts, if only for a short while; fight fire with fire, if you like. If then the WI brigade pipe up and say that would make us as bad as they are, so what? If it's a possible solution I don't have a problem with that. There's a war out there and possibly the harsher, the better, the quicker; THEN we can enjoy the benefits of normal civilisation we're trying so hard to enjoy now.
Was that an ill-conceived quip or a well-thought-out in-depth analysis of the socio-economic problems forcing us to rethink our entire criminal justice system brionon? If the latter, well, you've cut me to the quick, shot me down in flames and generally belittled my every concept. I feel totally humiliated now.
Oh dear. Did I actually type the word 'Brussels'? Yes, I did din't I? It looks as though a few were aimlessly reading the posting, suddenly came across a word they recognised and flushed with temporary success and not being used to it couldn't wait to comment on it. The fact that it had very little relevance, if any to the main theme of the posting didn't really make any difference.
I went to New York recently and have to admit I was quite amazed at how safe it felt.
All credit to Rudy Giuliani and his successors, they have done an amazing job.
The city is huge and incredibly busy but feels so safe. There are loads of police around all the time but in a very non-threatening way and they are very very friendly.
In fact, people are incredibly friendly on the whole. They seem proud of their city and want to keep it good.
I know it may be more of a bubble thing as when I lived and worked in Central London I have to admit that you don't see anywhere near as much crime and anti-social behaviour as when you head out a bit. Even so, I don't feel as safe there as I did in New York.
Zero tolerance and swift justice and harsher sentencing and prison environments with much stricter procedures on drugs and violence in prison and rewards for improving behaviour coupled with education and reconditioning.
All credit to Rudy Giuliani and his successors, they have done an amazing job.
The city is huge and incredibly busy but feels so safe. There are loads of police around all the time but in a very non-threatening way and they are very very friendly.
In fact, people are incredibly friendly on the whole. They seem proud of their city and want to keep it good.
I know it may be more of a bubble thing as when I lived and worked in Central London I have to admit that you don't see anywhere near as much crime and anti-social behaviour as when you head out a bit. Even so, I don't feel as safe there as I did in New York.
Zero tolerance and swift justice and harsher sentencing and prison environments with much stricter procedures on drugs and violence in prison and rewards for improving behaviour coupled with education and reconditioning.
brionon. Yes I AM wrong, but only in your opinion; it doesn't make it a fact. You may THINK I'm wrong but that's it. If you don't think I made a cogent argument it only means one of two things to me (or maybe both); that you see yourself in the future and in the light of what I said you've become fearful or you don't understand the meanings of too many words. How long MUST a posting be then?
Britain has a fairly low rate of imprisonment (per crimes committed) but high levels of imprisonment (%age of population). This is because we have the top rate of theft and violence offences in the developed world. As a comparative example, Spain has about half as much crime (per capita) but a much higher rate of imprisonment. British courts send a high number of people to prison because there are a high number of offences committed, not because we too readily impose custodial sentences.
To enter prison you have to have committed either a single very serious offence or a number (usually a high number) of less serious offences within a fairly short timescale. For those in the latter category all manner of rehabilitative measures will have been tried before custody is finally imposed. So by the time they reach prison, those sent there are either serious offenders or less serious but persistent offenders. Only about 30% of people sent to prison go there for the first time and less than 10% have no previous criminal record. In short, those in prison are already serious or persistent offenders and so are more likely to re-offend than those sentenced to other disposals. So if you were going to promote any comparative argument (and I�m not doing so) you should expect the rate of re-offending from prisons (which is about 65%) to be far higher than it is, thus �proving� that prison works.
For most people in custody, rehabilitation has been tried, has failed and is unlikely ever to work. It�s a laudable aim to help these souls and considerable sums are spent trying to do so. However, the one argument in favour of custodial sentences (which cannot be easily countered) is that they protect the public from the activities of miscreants for the period of their incarceration.
So by all means try to rehabilitate offenders, but when it fails, admit that it has, think of the public, and lock them up.
To enter prison you have to have committed either a single very serious offence or a number (usually a high number) of less serious offences within a fairly short timescale. For those in the latter category all manner of rehabilitative measures will have been tried before custody is finally imposed. So by the time they reach prison, those sent there are either serious offenders or less serious but persistent offenders. Only about 30% of people sent to prison go there for the first time and less than 10% have no previous criminal record. In short, those in prison are already serious or persistent offenders and so are more likely to re-offend than those sentenced to other disposals. So if you were going to promote any comparative argument (and I�m not doing so) you should expect the rate of re-offending from prisons (which is about 65%) to be far higher than it is, thus �proving� that prison works.
For most people in custody, rehabilitation has been tried, has failed and is unlikely ever to work. It�s a laudable aim to help these souls and considerable sums are spent trying to do so. However, the one argument in favour of custodial sentences (which cannot be easily countered) is that they protect the public from the activities of miscreants for the period of their incarceration.
So by all means try to rehabilitate offenders, but when it fails, admit that it has, think of the public, and lock them up.
-- answer removed --
I couldn't agree with you more Zeuhl. My reference to Brussels was the amount of social law we've been forced to encompass, my prime target being the often-quoted civil liberties and human rights, you know those nice little get-outs criminals use to ensure they get the right amount of sugar in their tea in the morning, and that its hot enough. The injustice they're so willing to administer yet so reluctant to suffer from.
1 to 15 of 15
