|
|
|
|
Elegantly phrased, David - much better than my clumsy attempt to make the same point!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I think, NW, that our views are closer than these exchanges might suggest, except that I have a rather lower expectation of remorse and redemption - but it's far from a zero expectation.
The small thought is that a major source of indignation (not wholly restricted to the choleric colonels) is the perception that inmates are released from prison having served only part of their sentence. This is really a matter of bureaucratic semantics; the 'sentence' is still imposed on the same principles as a century ago, when in the vast majority of cases it really did represent the term to be served. All of the subsequent - and, on the whole, entirely valid - re-assessments are expressed in terms of 'early release'. We have even reached the stage where minimum terms are attached to some 'life' sentences, which is an obvious contradiction in terms. It would surely be possible to re-cast sentencing the other way round, so that the sentence imposed would be the minimum term (and so would normally be much shorter than current sentences), but with a conditional element which could delay release if the prisoner was regarded as dangerous to the community or highly likely to re-offend - a kind of 'reverse parole'. I accept that there would be problems to overcome but what I envisage is a system in which, instead of a five-year sentence leading to release in two years, a two-year sentence might, in the worst case scenario, involve imprisonment for five years. I know that I am only playing with words, but words are powerful and emotive things!
The large thought is not new; it is something I have believed for many years. Capitalism - the 'Free-Market Economy' - is so often viewed as the only alternative to Communism. It isn't. Unrestrained capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Socialism is a mechanism for applying restraint. I don't mean the old fashioned approach of over-powerful trade unions and a commitment to widespread public ownership, but rather the philosophic principle of adequate community support, so that every citizen has the opportunity to make the best of his or her life. This embraces not only the two usual flagships of education and medical care, but the whole concept of the quality of life. The link to the Broadwater Farm regeneration, provided in one of NW's posts, is a perfect example of what I mean. Give people an attractive environment and adequate community resources and so many of the problems disappear; the near-absence of crime from a former crime crisis area is compelling evidence. The pattern has been repeated on the Meadow Well Estate on Tyneside, the scene of major rioting some years ago. See the connection? Money works wonders, but too often it is spent only after crisis point is reached. Why is that? Because insufficient funds are available. And why is that? Because tax revenue is insufficient, and tax-cutting become such a political hot potato that no party could expect to be elected on a platform which included tax increases. A huge amount of rubbish is talked about our tax burden, but non-political analysis shows that our overall taxes are well below the average in other similar economies. Some commentators would have us believe that society is in meltdown. That's an exaggeration, but there is a real problem, and a central element of that problem is the sub-standard housing which made fortunes for architects and developers in the 1960s but compelled tenants to life in instant ghettos. We desperately need a nationwide programme of environmental improvements BEFORE a crisis breaks out. We also need to change the economic culture which encourages local authorities to undertake capital projects but then denies finance for maintenance of those projects. For example, there are currently several financial initiatives encouraging local authorities to revitalise parks and open spaces - many of which have been neglected for years - but there is no mention of finance to support future maintenance. It's all cosmetic; if we are going to move forward it isn't enough to make improvements; we need to MAINTAIN those improvements.
There are those who claim that taxation inhibits entrepreneurial initiative. That's a meaningless mantra, which conceals the real fear that the rich may have to subsidise those less fortunate than themselves, using money they could otherwise apply to private education or private medical care which the less fortunate cannot afford. Certainly, tax increases would hit the majority of the population, but those in the middle ground would immediately benefit from improved local services and facilities.
Broadwater Farm clearly shows that public expenditure on housing, environment and social support leads to much lower levels of crime - and it shows this in an area where ethnic minorities combine to constitute a substantial majority. Our basic rate of income tax is 22%. If it were 25%, and if the additional revenue were applied to social and community problems, we could reduce crime - and, with it, social deprivation - at a stroke.
But are we prepared to pay?
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
oh well life goes on.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cossie, I must take up some of your points, bit I'm going to start a new thread - Cossie said…
Hugs
N
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie - I think it's often true that our differences are ones of emphasis rather than deep substance. Perhaps this is why I so often find your arguments persuasive enough to make me slighly modify my position, or at least clarify my own thinking!
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I really appreciate your comments!
We're certainly aiming for the same goal, even if we're taking slightly divergent paths!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
