|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
I read that we only have 245 spaces left in our prisons.
What will the government do?
Let them out early so they can rape & Kill, or bring back the death penalty to be rid of people that cannot be rehabilitated, or build more prisons which I understand they are building one,
Our country is now a culture of knives, guns, and gangs.
We are only a small island yet we have at least 60 million people and I wonder how many people we now let into our country even though they have police records etc.
Not to mention the illegal ones.
I am not looking for a big slap on the wrist but we do need to solve the problem as we cannot send them to Australia anymore.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I think the short answer must be to build more prisons.
I'm opposed in principle to capital punishment, because the law isn't - and never can be - infallible. I remember, as a kid, the notorious 'A6 Murder', for which James Hanratty was arrested, tried and hanged. Subsequent investigation makes it pretty obvious that he wasn't responsible - but he was dead and no-one else was ever charged. Anyway, even though murder is much more common than it was in those days, capital punishment wouldn't materially reduce the pressure on our prisons.
Though I appreciate that ethnic minorities account for a disproportionate number of the prison population, I think that this merely reflects their place in our society; those lowest in the social scale always accounted for the majority in prisons.
Without going on interminably, I think that the key factor in the rise of low-grade (that is, violent but unintelligent) crime is the well-intentioned but hopelessly misjudged theories which began as long ago as the 1960s, but continue today. For example, I can (just about) understand the original reasoning which prompted the provision of local-authority housing for unmarried teenage mothers, but that reasoning was flawed from the start because it was inevitable, and it should certainly have been foreseen, that the result would be a rise in teenage pregnancies created simply by the desire for such housing.
Similarly, we have the 'bleeding hearts' brigade insisting that it is virtually always in the best interests of a child to remain with its mother. Codswallop! Most of these kids would have a far better chance in life if they were adopted by approved couples who cannot have children of their own. Left with their own parents, they inevitably become the criminals of tomorrow.
I've been a committed Socialist all my life, but - to me - Socialism means equality of opportunity. You can't make everyone equal, because - by whatever measure you choose - they AREN'T equal. On the one hand I think that it is inherently wrong that those with money can secure a better education for their children than those without money - but on the other hand I disagree with the concept of comprehensive schools; pupils with ability should have the opportunity to make the most of that ability. If that results in a cleaner's son becoming a barrister, then - at last - we will have succeeded.
I know I've drifted away from Jack's original question, but I suppose that what I'm trying to underline is that rights come with responsibilities, and those who do not accept their responsibilities deserve to be deprived of their rights.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote
>but on the other hand I disagree with the concept of comprehensive schools; pupils with ability should have the opportunity to make the most of that ability. If that results in a cleaner's son becoming a barrister, then - at last - we will have succeeded.<
Sadly the scrapping of the grammar schools denied many children the road out of the ghetto, one of those courses of action that had the opposite effect than the one intended.
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 wrote
>Most of these kids would have a far better chance in life if they were adopted by approved couples who cannot have children of their own. Left with their own parents, they inevitably become the criminals of tomorrow.<
In the town eight miles along the road there is a family which 'boasts' 200 years of cime. Whenever low grade crime is committed the police call on them first and when most of them are locked up the crime rate decreases dramatically.
Hugs
N
PS - for some reason these two posts wouldn't combine. ???
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 said,
>Anyway, even though murder is much more common than it was in those days, capital punishment wouldn't materially reduce the pressure on our prisons.
Does anyone have some detailed statistics on what has happened to the murder rate over the last few decades?
The best I've been able to find is over the last ten years -
http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/page40.asp
Even so, from this figures, given that there can only be a few thousand people serving time for homicide at any one point, I would have to agree with you that capital punishment would not make a huge difference. Of those, many would not qualify as they were guilty of manslaughter, not murder, or there were mitigating circumstances.
Most people in prison would still be in for crimes of less severity, and we can't execute them.
I also disagree with capital punishment, both because I do not believe in retribution of this sort and because of the danger of miscarriage of justice.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take a slightly different view.
In 2003 - the last year for which I've found figures - around one in ten people were in prison without having been found guilty of the crime for which they were arrested. Yes, that's right, they're "on remand", waiting for trial. Some of these are clearly dangerous people who any reasonable risk assessment would keep locked away. Many of them are not. "The fact that over 50% of all remand prisoners are not subsequently given a custodial sentence points to an urgent need for reform to reduce the numbers of remand prisoners. " UK Select Committee on Home Affairs, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/193/19312.htm ) While a minority of cases are complex, most are not: there can be little excuse for the prolonged delays where people are kept waiting for trial that are common in our system.
Secondly, we as a society are choosing to over-penalise behaviour that - while antisocial and upsetting - is not necessarily the most damaging. We lock up the prostitute who solicits to support her heroin habit, but not the johns who provide the market for her. We lock up the petty criminal who steals to supplement the dole, but not the respectable middle classes who supports him by buying dodgy stolen gear in pubs. We lock up someone who owns a dangerous weapon (knife, gun) even if they don't use it, but let people who use a dangerous weapon (car) to injure or kill people off with a fairly minor sentence that is often non-custodial.
And - worst of all - too many of us are too sanctimonious. We have forgotten that youth is a time where many will be socially non-conforming, and that many of us could (if we are truely honest with ourselves) have been locked up for long periods. We need to look long and hard at why young tearaways like I was (technically, I have slept with an underage girl - she was 2 days short of her 16th birthday and I was 18, I have taken a wide variety of illegal drugs, I regularly drank alcohol in pubs from age 14 onwards, I have technically committed arson against school property, etc, etc, etc.) usually manage to turn out OK (as I did: a teetotal local government officer).
Youths will be youths ... I may not have an infallible way of helping people grow out of youthful offending quickly, but I am absolutely certain that starting to criminalise them too early, encouraging them to lie (eg. by making them sign non-optional behaviuour contracts), institutionalising and dehumanising them, and locking them up with advanced practictioners of assorted criminal practices, is NOT the answer.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW wrote
>but not the respectable middle classes who supports him by buying dodgy stolen gear in pubs<
Do I note a smidgen of prejudice here?
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 wrote:
On the one hand I think that it is inherently wrong that those with money can secure a better education for their children than those without money - but on the other hand I disagree with the concept of comprehensive schools; pupils with ability should have the opportunity to make the most of that ability.
I hope this discussion (Cossie, Nigel and me) about comprehensive education does not constitute the hijavking of Jack's thread.
While I most certainly do not disagree with Cossie concerning the social duty to make good education available to all I would like to say something in favour of comprehensive education - at least the comprehensive education with which I am familiar (which is not the British model). But before I do that let me clarify that I was educated in a British Grammar school, and the education that I got there was extremely good: I enjoyed my time there and in later years am able to assess its superb quality.
Until six years ago I spent twenty years as a teacher and administrator in my country's education system. Both schools where I worked were comprehensive schools. One was a small school in a small god-forsaken township in Israel's northern Negev desert; the other was a huge school in the centre of the country. I want to write a bit about the second school.
At one stage while I was there it was the largest school in the Middle East, with over 1800 students in just grades 10 - 12. (One year I was the form teacher - homeroom teacher - of class 12-19: the 19th class in grade 12 [Upper Sixth]!) The school catered for all students from the most brilliant to acutely remedial. The size of the school made it possible for complete social integration of all economic sectors and considerable mobility of the students who needed to move according to their academic ability. Because of this the students in the class to which I referred above were all classed as 'almost remedial' when they joined the school; but we decided to give them everything we could and three years later they all matriculated successfully (O-levels and A-levels) and many of them went on to university education.
Comprehensive education can be successful if it is properly managed. The most meaningful moment in my teaching career ocurred five years after I had stopped teaching altogether. I was sitting in the opera house waiting for the performance to begin when I was accosted by three people in their 20's who recognized their old homeroom teacher. Hugs all round. And I wept: three of my remedial students had found their own way into the opera house! So, my dear friend, l'Ecossais Pensif - vive l'education comprehensif!
JFR (with apologies for an inordinately long intrusion into this thread).
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> Do I note a smidgen of prejudice here?
Yup, probably. My own background is impeccably middle-class (mother: teacher at a Public School until she retired, then editor for Oxford University Press; father: Charity Director; schooling: selective-entry Direct Grant school; etc). Even the form of my rebellion against the middle classes was middle-class: I worked half my life in Theatre.
And I admit to an implicitly sexist tone (" him ") - actually, I usually use "them" as a non-sexist singular, but I know that several regular posters to this board find this usasge disturbing so I try to avoid it here.
But if you mean the apparent assumption that purveyors of dodgy goods are unlikely to be middle class, I'm prepared to defend it on the grounds that the actual act of selling dodgy goods on a small scale (one to one in a pub, rather than wholesale) constitutes such a betrayal of middle-class values as to suggest that the seller no longer qualifies as middle class.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really ought to stay out of this section of the thread -- anything I say about education (either defending public schools, or considering state education) will be perceived as snobbish and elitist. Even if I were to denounce public schools my having gone there would be perceived as undermining my position. I wouldn't do that, anyway.
That said, I don't think I have anything to lose, apart perhaps from the plot by going off on yet another tangeant.
I never perceived my school, at the time, as pecuniarily elitist; perhaps academically elitist, but I don't see anything wrong with that. There were a few people in my house with me on full scholarships -- some even had an allowance for clothes and books, if I remember correctly. While of course the whole system was largely paid for out of the pockets of the middle classes, I do feel that the charitable nature of the foundation mitigates the circumstances somewhat. Pupils with ability can make the most of that ability even if they could not otherwise afford it.
If I work in the film industry, for the first few years at least it is very unlikely that I will be able to afford to send my children to private schools. I hope that if I find myself in that position -- and my children are bright enough -- I will still be able to consider it.
I do not disagree with the idea of perfect education for all, but I don't see any way it could reasonably be put into practice in the UK. Not for many decades or even centuries, anyway.
Cossie, where did you go to school? Where did you send your children?
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NW, couldn't the middle class purveyors of stolen goods at least be found in bistros?
Don't worry about sexism. That should be the least a gay person has to worry about.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JFR wrote:
>Comprehensive education can be successful if it is properly managed.<
The if-clause is the crux of the argument. I regret it doesn't apply to so many comps in Great Britain. From my teaching experience I know that you always have to aim higher than you hope to achieve. So many weaker pupils are patronised and so many stronger ones are bored to death by the stultifying material they are offered.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nigel wrote:
> NW, couldn't the middle class purveyors of stolen goods at least be found in bistros?
>
As the owners of the bistros, presumably?
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
N.W. said.
Youths will be youths ... I may not have an infallible way of helping people grow out of youthful offending quickly, but I am absolutely certain that starting to criminalise them too early, encouraging them to lie (eg. by making them sign non-optional behaviuour contracts), institutionalising and dehumanising them, and locking them up with advanced practictioners of assorted criminal practices, is NOT the answer.
So what would you do with them remember we are talking about gangs that dont think twice about useing weapons, and beating up old people etc.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im not sure about comprehensive schools else where, but here (Magnet schools) the requirements are so high that classes are taught on a college level. I think the whole idea was to stop boring the smarter children and in turn making it harder on the average children. I dont want to sound like I think some kids arnt capable of performing up to snuff, but lets be real, some arnt, for whatever reason. the school here is made up of two parts, a regular high school and a comprehinsive magnet school. A lot of us magnet school kids have to help the high school jocks pass test so they can keep playing.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I see around here a lot is not that some kids are born bullies or criminals, but its a learned behavior. Sorta like my cousins. their rents are low life scum and they teach their children to be low life scum. They are taught that stealing and cheatting is ok. they are bullies because they see their dads bullie people, so it must be ok. They see their dads beat their moms so, hey, it must be ok. It wont stop till the cycle is broken.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack wrote:
> So what would you do with them remember we are talking about gangs that dont think twice about useing weapons, and beating up old people etc.
Well, a lot of the point is that we are precisely NOT generally "talking about gangs that dont think twice about useing weapons, and beating up old people etc " - your OP was about the overcrowding in prisons, and many - possibly most - prisoners (for example, those 'remanded in custody' that I mentioned) are not gang members or violent.
But if you're asking my opinion on what should be done to reduce the level of gang violence I would say that a twofold approach might help:
Firstly and essentially - we as a society should decide whether we are in favour of violence or not. If we are not, we should apply this *consistently* - we should punish the police who shot Jean charles de Menezes, the prison officers who routinely use violence and other corrupt means to "control" prisoners (and to extort sexual favours), the politicians who use violence as a way of furthering our countries percieved interests (Iraq, Afghanistan, elsewhere), the police drivers who maim and kill innocent bystanders when playing "cops and robbers" (also known as "high speed driving practice"). We as adults have produced a society where reperesentatives of authority are allowed to do things with impunity, which kids would be locked up for: kids usually have an inbuilt understanding of "fairness", and such double standards forfeit any moral authority we may wish to award ourselves.
Secondly, and as a follow-on, we need to start noticing kids who are going off the rails earlier, and try to work out *individual* ways to help. There is NO one-size-fits-all answer ... and the new UK national database of kids seems to be making the situation even worse, in that many are now afraid to do simple things like attend a birth control clinic, because the information is in outline available to such a broad cross-section of people that it might as well be publicly-available (exemptions are granted to the children of politicians, of course ...). Credibility can only be earned by treating young adults with respect, precisely as young adults. The difference is really like the difference between mentoring and teaching ...
To sum up, as I said in my earlier post, I don't have any really easy answers to the problem of young offenders (juvenile delinquents, as they were when I was one). But I *do* know what makes things worse ... and society in both the UK and the USA seems to be determined to do precisely that!
"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 have to admit that I don't have precise figures of murder rates over the past 50 years, but until the early 1960s pretty well every murder made the national news - certainly if Scotland Yard became involved. National newspapers had a team of crime reporters whizzing around covering every case. I have a book by Tom Tullett, who is described on the jacket as the 'doyen of crime reporters'; he worked for the 'Daily Mirror' in the years before dumbing down, and reported on a large number of high-profile killings.
The area where I grew up (aggregate population around 100,000, but spread among several communities) saw only one murder in the 20 years I lived there. Now there's at least one a year - and that's a rural area, not an inner city.
I'd be very interested to see detailed statistics; my impression is that there have been demographic changes, too - the average age of convicted murderers seems to have fallen considerably.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... is fine in theory (as is the case with so many theories!), and I accept that even in the UK there are many good comprehensive schools which serve their pupils well - but all too often the success depends upon the quality of the leadership, and there simply aren't enough good leaders.
Given the size of the average school, there is inadequate provision for subjects out of the mainstream; for example, Russian may be available, but only in a limited number of subject combinations. Far too often, middle-ability pupils are encouraged towards less demanding subjects so that the school can maintain a respectable percentage pass-rate. High-ability pupils are frequently inadequately challenged, and are in danger of becoming bored and of losing interest in their education.
My own children attended a comprehensive school; with my political aversion to private schooling it could hardly have been otherwise. When they joined the school, it was highly rated; discipline was under control and most members of staff were motivated and enthusiastic. When my kids were in years 10 and 8, the head teacher retired. His replacement was full of politically correct ideals but devoid of leadership ability. The staff was demoralised, the quality of teaching declined. After brilliant GCSE results, my son lost interest and was lucky to be admitted to his undergraduate course with less than the required A-level grades. Happily, he left four years later with a Master's degree in Engineering, and is now well-established in the profession, but it might so easily have turned out very differently. My daughter was perhaps better-focused, but her ambition was a degree in politics and philosophy. The school provided virtually no guidance in choosing appropriate A-levels. Her high GCSE grades and projected A-level results secured interviews at Oxford, but again there was absolutely no guidance as to the likely format of those interviews; they were not at all as she expected and she felt that she performed poorly in comparison with applicants from public schools, who knew precisely what to expect. Interestingly, my nephew, who attended a Roman Catholic Grant-aided Comprehensive, was offered interviews at Cambridge, and was fully briefed by the School in advance; he was successful and is now starting his third year. In the event, my daughter graduated from York University and, after a year out to raise funding, starts her MA course on Monday.
The UK is obsessed with performance statistics for schools. I live in an area which has a wide mix of incomes and backgrounds; the traditional economy was a mix of farming and coal-mining. The mines closed just before I moved here, but the population mix hasn't materially changed since then. When my son started at the local comprehensive, it was regularly scored in the top 25% of comparable schools in the local authority area; by the time my daughter left, it was barely scraping in to the top 75%. And that is simply not good enough.
Obviously, I have observed my kids' progress very carefully, and have tried to support and encourage them when the school did not do so. But my inescapable conclusion is that the UK comprehensive School system is failing our children miserably. JFR, I happily accept that things may be different in Israel, though I suspect that the leadership qualities of head teachers will still have a significant effect. But, here in the UK, comprehensive schools are consistently failing to deliver.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... and I think that the Education Act 1944 was superior to any subsequent legislation.
Because of my political convictions, my children attended a comprehensive school - see my post above. Happily, they both survived the ordeal but, with less home support, that so easily might not have been the case. In retrospect, I have doubts as to the validity of my convictions - particularly in view of the fact that they were not shared by the leader of the Labour Party!
I don't knock those who attend Public School by scholarship - that is, by virtue of their ability - but I do sincerely believe that it is intrinsically wrong that possession of wealth should secure a superior education. British history (and, perhaps most of all, British military history) demonstrates the damage that an old-school network of undistinguished and unintelligent wealth can create. And, to a far from insignificant extent, that is still happening.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... I'm afraid that I see your response as naive, NW.
I accept the there is some validity in almost everything you say, but the problem is real, it is now, and it needs to be addressed in a practical way.
Yes, I accept that social policy over the last half century has been rather worse than useless. It has still left us with a legacy which needs to be addressed urgently. I, like you, was a child of my times. I didn't get into drugs because drugs didn't reach my rural corner at the time I was susceptible. But I bought in to all the idealism of the 1960s. Unlike you, I was very much a working-class child of those times. I lived among those of whom I approved, and those of whom I very much disapproved.
My experience tells me that, however hard we may try, there will always be an underclass beyond those we see as capable of redemption. 'Twas ever thus. But the majority of the population are well able to comprehend the relationship between rights and responsibilities. Unhappily, social policies haven't made much of an attempt to link these two concepts.
I accept that the police and prison service - especially the latter - are far from perfect and in need of close scrutiny. I agree that irresponsible behaviour by the police - such as unjustifiable high-speed driving - is not adequately penalised. There is a great deal wrong with the present system. But that doesn't justify what - sorry, NW - seems to me to be a bleeding-hearts approach.
Here on Tyneside mindless violence is certainly on the increase. The weak and fragile are frequently at the receiving end of that violence - in many cases with fatal consequences. A significant - though proportionately small - proportion of teenage youth is wholly out of control, and is imposing chaos upon an unfortunate section of our community. I agree that these antisocial tendencies can be traced back to inadequate social policy, but that does not justify kid-gloved handling of the perpetrators of the chaos.
The priority must be the protection of the wider community.
And yes, I agree that the present prison system needs to be changed. If a major criminal 'rules' a prison, this can only be a result of the corrupt connivance of prison officers. Young offenders should be completely segregated from older prisoners - otherwise prison becomes an opportunity to learn ever more sophisticated criminality.
But, at the same time, the wider population is entitled to protection. The concept of 'human rights' is looming too large in today's judicial system. There's no easy 'fix', but I do think that, with proper checks and balances, public protection should take precedence over personal liberty.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
The entire concept of a comprehensive school is good. What harmed this concept from the start was implementation by the "All kids are equal" brigade, a mantra.
If the school is streamed and setted correctly, the cleaner's son has every chance. But, if there is no streaming, or worse no setting, then neither the very bright nor the very dumb kids get the special education each needs.
This is as true in primary education, where my wife's school has just stopped setting for maths at all as a dogma issue, or maybe to "fix" league tables in 2 years time after they resume and shoot ahead.
Had we had good schools where I live I would have saved the fortune I spent on private education for my son.
While not a universal truth, being able to afford to pay for eductaion seems to guarantee two things, and ony two: Smaller cla sizes with better resulting tuition; A higher baseline because kids from cash seem brighter than kids from "no cash".
That last is a sweeping generalisation. We all know of notable exceptions. I know one girl from my teens form the roughest estate in Wandsworth who got to Cambridge and got a great degree. The cleaner's son does escape, or in this case his daughter.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> And yes, I agree that the present prison system needs to be changed. If a major criminal 'rules' a prison, this can only be a result of the corrupt connivance of prison officers. Young offenders should be completely segregated from older prisoners - otherwise prison becomes an opportunity to learn ever more sophisticated criminality.
> But, at the same time, the wider population is entitled to protection. The concept of 'human rights' is looming too large in today's judicial system. There's no easy 'fix', but I do think that, with proper checks and balances, public protection should take precedence over personal liberty.
I can absolutely go along with all of that !
But - in my view - the thing that actually is happening is neither public protection nor personal liberty, but locking people up because the public demands a vindictive rather than reparative justice system.
And, too often, we are locking young people up because we (as a society) find them unsettling ... not because they are dangerous, or even because they are thieves, but because they hang round street corners wearing hoodies, and have breached the terms of the ASBOs that have been imposed for a variety of reasons - sometimes good reasons, sometimes bad reasons.
Make no mistake, I agree with the need to remove certain dangerous offenders from free circulation in society. But such offenders are NOT the majority of the prison population, I suspect. Removal of people who simply shouldn't be in prison (remand prisoners on minor offences who even if found guilty would be unlikely to get a custodial sentence, and those in prison because the "care in the community" schemes of the Thatcher era have dismally failed a large number of those with severe mental problems and poor social skills, for example) would mean that instead of needing to build a load of new prisons, we could start to close some of the older institutions that facilitate abuse and corruption. But above all, we need a justice system which is a lot fairer than the one we currently operate ... one where there is a transparent relationship between the kind of offence and the kind of punishment, and one that is geared to the prevention of re-offending rather than that gratification of the outrage and blood-lust of geriatric colonels and readers of right-wing tabloids.
"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
|
|
|
You say:
" ... in my view ... the thing that actually is happening is neither public protection nor personal liberty, but locking people up because the public demands a vindictive rather than reparative justice system.
And, too often, we are locking young people up because we (as a society) find them unsettling ... not because they are dangerous, or even because they are thieves, but because they hang round street corners wearing hoodies, and have breached the terms of the ASBOs that have been imposed for a variety of reasons - sometimes good reasons, sometimes bad reasons."
Well, I live far from the territory of the choleric colonels and the blue-rinse brigade; most local magistrates are conspicuously ordinary people. I accept that in common with the rest of the country, magistrates' courts may be becoming rather too fond of ASBOs (Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, for the benefit of those outside the UK). But from what I see and hear locally, the vast majority of such orders are sensibly applied. I think there is a degree of naivety in the choice of words in your second paragraph; I haven't heard of a single instance of the imposition of an ASBO for congregating on a street corner wearing a hoodie; I doubt in fact whether that alone could properly be held to be antisocial behaviour. But when the congregation throws beer cans into an adjacent garden, and tells the annoyed householder to 'piss off before we kick your fucking head in', I find it hard to see how their behaviour can be regarded as other than antisocial. It's a matter of distinguishing one situation from the other, and I see no evidence to suggest that this is not happening - though, as ever, mistakes will sometimes be made. In any event, a significant number of ASBOs have been granted against adults over a wide age range, and there have been several instances in which the offenders are wealthy, middle-class citizens. Arrogant disregard of neighbours' rights is unacceptable at any social level.
You go on to say:
"Removal of people who simply shouldn't be in prison (remand prisoners on minor offences who even if found guilty would be unlikely to get a custodial sentence, and those in prison because the "care in the community" schemes of the Thatcher era have dismally failed a large number of those with severe mental problems and poor social skills, for example) would mean that instead of needing to build a load of new prisons, we could start to close some of the older institutions that facilitate abuse and corruption."
The point about remand prisoners is superficially persuasive - but before becoming persuaded I would need to see statistical evidence of the extent of the problem. The obligation is ultimately upon the prosecution to show why bail should not be granted. Some local magistrates have been very insistent that this obligation is met. I don't have the necessary detailed knowledge, but I do read the local daily in depth and I haven't formed the impression that remands in custody are either routine or misused, except perhaps in borderline cases, where magistrates may see a remand in custody as a short, sharp shock in the event that a custodial sentence isn't ultimately imposed. That, I accept, is a technical misuse of the magistrates' powers, but it may well work. I'm entirely with you as regards the 'care in the community' culture, which is an ongoing disaster, but if these people are to be taken out of the community we need more facilities in which to provide the care and support they require - in, short, we need more capacity, but some of it should be within the health service rather than the prison service.
Finally, you say:
" ... above all, we need a justice system which is a lot fairer than the one we currently operate ... one where there is a transparent relationship between the kind of offence and the kind of punishment, and one that is geared to the prevention of re-offending rather than that gratification of the outrage and blood-lust of geriatric colonels and readers of right-wing tabloids."
I agree absolutely. The assumption that someone who looks - or has at any time looked - at pictures of naked children, even if the pictures are not overtly sexual, is every bit as much of an evil monster as someone who has committed a series of rapes against children, and that he should therefore be placed on the Sex Offenders' Register and hounded for the rest of his life, is a graphic example of a lack of logic and proportion. But there are real problems. There is an increasing tendency for the Lord Chancellor's Office to issue (effectively compulsory) guidelines to the judiciary with regard to appropriate sentencing, in an attempt to achieve a degree of transparency and standardisation - but if the trial judge loses much of his discretion the result can be a loss of justice. Take an offence like causing death by dangerous driving. We all drive dangerously on occasion - for example passing a red traffic light because we were confused by another set of lights showing green only a few yards further on, or overshooting a give way sign because our foot slips off the brake pedal. Very occasionally, someone dies as a result. At the other end of the scale, you have someone without a licence, in a stolen car they don't know how to control, driving around a residential area at very high speed, losing control and hitting several pedestrians, some of whom die. In a recent local case, a judge effectively apologised for his inability to pass an appropriate sentence in a case involving multiple deaths, which he described as the worst example of selfish irresponsibility that he had ever heard - precisely because the guidelines set an upper limit on his discretion. I don't know more than I read in the local press, but it does indicate the need for very careful consideration and balance.
As regards gearing sentences towards the prevention of re-offending, of course I agree in principle, but until we revise our basic social policies to achieve a better balance between rights and responsibilities I suspect that too many offenders will be lost causes by the time they come before the courts.
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
|
|
|
Well I believe what we need to do is build enough prison space to house as many prisoners as we need to lock up because at present crimes are up because people know that the punishment will not fit the crime.
The latest figure for the total amount of places is 79000, do you not think this should be more like 500,000 places, then we can lock people up for the full term of sentence,
Not pussy foot about giving some one life and they are out in 7 years, it is necessary to send the message that your punishment will fit the crime no matter what.
I am not saying chop off a hand we have moved on since those times but we do need to send the message that if you use a knife you have intended to do serious damage and you will loose your liberty for many years.
People old middle aged and young all go to court and laugh they are fined but do not pay, so what do we do forget about it.
People that are poor or suffer drug addiction will steal yes they need help social help.
But if you harm people then you will feel the pain of serious prison.
I know of people that like to go to prison because all there needs are catered for and they have the chance to eat good food and build up there bodies.
The problem with the U.K. is too many people think poor (prisoner) was Mira hindley a poor prisoner.
I know of a chap that thank god is in prison for rape and total destruction of his girl friends home who also had his son, he then went on to beat a girl within an inch of her life.
I can go on and on but some people who think they can heal scum get up my nose.
N,W I read some previous post that you live near Tottenham in London I bet you do not walk out alone at night.
I do know you would change your mind if you open it.
Cossie I like what you have had to say you talk a lot of sense but the air is pure in Scotland.
 )
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack wrote:
> N,W I read some previous post that you live near Tottenham in London I bet you do not walk out alone at night.
> I do know you would change your mind if you open it.
>
I have lived actually in Tottenham for over 22 years (even when working in Scotland, I kept up my flat here, and my kind-of-partner lived here). I am less than 300 yards from the notorious Broadwater Farm, scene of some of the worst riots in England (the result of the death of Cynthia Jarrett during a police raid, and leading to the death of PC Keith Blakelock). I am in a deprived area which is part-way through a massive investment of Social Fund / Urban Regeneration money.
I walk home alone from the tube or rail station, often pretty late at night - that isn't a problem. I pass a streetcorner which until recently usually had one or two street prostitutes working from it (until the introduction of CCTV) ... not something I especially mind, but they used to take their johns into an alleyway only some 30 yards from my house, and I did start to get fed up with removing used condoms that had blown into the rosebushes in my front garden! I have been mugged once in the street (at 1500h in broad daylight eight years ago), and my home has been burgled three times, most recently six years ago.
My views on the appropriate treatment of offenders are not born of inexperience, nor do I close my eyes to what is around me. So, what is the reality? Try this link from the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4308018.stm It explains more eloqently than I ever could just how an area can change into a community.
And my own personal experiences are not dissimilar. I've supervised a fair number of kids (15-17 year olds, generally) attached as work placements, trainees, etc over the years. I've tended to be given the kids who have found fitting in to school settings difficult - some of them have been severely dyslexic, one of them had struggled to provide food and care to younger siblings as his alcoholic single parent was incapable of doing so, several had been severely bullied for being different in some way. Nearly all had a record of intermittent schoool attendance, poor educational achievement, and (as kids skipping school often do) petty vandalism and thievery. Some of them had been caught, some hadn't.
I won't claim any magic: not every kid that I've ever worked with has succeeded in sorting their lives out. But most of them have been able to use the time spent with me not only to aquire practical skills and understanding of the world of work, but also to grow as people, and to channel their enegies into more constructive areas.
Finally, I absolutely reject the idea that "The latest figure for the total amount of places is 79000, do you not think this should be more like 500,000 places, then we can lock people up for the full term of sentence,
Not pussy foot about giving some one life and they are out in 7 years, it is necessary to send the message that your punishment will fit the crime no matter what." I believe that the only good reason to lock people up is to protect others. When there is a reasonable certainty that someone will not re-offend, release in very much in order ... I do NOT believe in "punishment" as such. Everything that I have read on the subject leads me to believe that it is the percieved likelihood of being caught, rather than the severity of the sentence, that acts as a deterrent.
So, given that I don't believe that imprisonment works as a deterrent, the only things it can possibly do is to remove perpetrators from society to prevent re-offence, or to indulge the vindictive impulses of the "law-abiding". I freely concede the appropriateness of the first, but every particle of my moral and religious beliefs rebels against the latter. To be honest, the moral indignation of the so-called law-abiding strikes me too often as as a cover-up: most people at some time or other have broken the law, but comfort themselves with the thought that what they did was not really bad lawbreaking ... it goes as much for the person who helps themself to printer cartridges from work to use at home as it does for the person who nicks a can of beer from the offie! My suspicion, however, is that many of those most vociferous in the "lock-'em-up" brigade are unwilling to face the truth about themselves in this way ... in much the same way as many queerbashers have unacknowledged gay tendencies. [Jack, please note that I'm not suggesting that this is so in your case: I'd like to keep the discussion free of personal animosity.]
All, please excuse the length of this post: I was a bit upset by the apparent implication that I live in some kind of fairy-tale ignorance of the real world. My life experience may be very different from those of many other members of this forum - indeed, the diversity of backgrounds, ages, and experiences is one of the great strengths of this "Place of Safety" - but my views arise from a mix of that experience and native idealism, rather than a wilful blindness to reality.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that ASBOs are used against all ages, not just the young (I think it's about 40% of ASBOs granted against under-25's). And, certainly, I'm not suggesting that an ASBO would be granted purely for wearing a hoodie. But prison sentences are given for breaching an ASBO - there have been cases where it seems likely that members of the public have testified that they felt threatened by groups of kids in hoodies just because there was a group of kids lounging about ... and for tht kind of thing to result in a breach of ASBO and hence prison is not something I'm keen on.
I'd also agree that many magistrates, and even more so the appeals processes are exercising a considerable good judgement, and restraint on the excesses of the law as written. Certainly, the incongruity where someone committing a public order offence was liable for 6 months jail, but if done as a breach of an ASBO was liable for five years, has been effecively closed by case law - and there are other examples, including a refusal to grant an ASBO banning a person from political protest.
But there are also cases of appalling misjudgement - the kid with Tourette's syndrome given an ASBO for swearing is the classic example (this and similar cases on http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4144840.stm )
>
> As regards gearing sentences towards the prevention of re-offending, of course I agree in principle, but until we revise our basic social policies to achieve a better balance between rights and responsibilities I suspect that too many offenders will be lost causes by the time they come before the courts.
This strikes to the heart of it - I think we're partly talking about different timescales. My concern is not the immediate problem of kids (and adults) in court ... I do actually agree that the chances of many of them reforming in the near future are slim, although I would hate to give up any human being as a "lost cause" (most young offenders do eventually grow out of criminal behaviour, although arguably despite prison rather than because of it). My concern is more with what I see as the long-term solution - that of ensuring that people growing up have opportunities and role models that are more attractive than criminality.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Hi N.W.
o.k. Tottenham is about 1.5 miles from hackney, i have seen a chemist knifed to death outside his shop.
was a person knifed to death by a young gang, i underdstand they have arrested a boy of 17 years of age, who is part of a gang need i say anymore, please note i am not haveing ago about where you live i am makeing a point.
I stand by what i say.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
There is one thing, though. Many victims of crime, especially if the crime has been any sort of intimidation, are genuinely and reasonably afraid of meeting the criminal again.
They have a right to be protected.
If overcrowded jails are the sole reason that prisoners are released early then the facilities are totally wrongly sized.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lets re-open Devils Island, put all the violent prisoners there who have been convicted, and drop a nuke on them.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> There is one thing, though. Many victims of crime, especially if the crime has been any sort of intimidation, are genuinely and reasonably afraid of meeting the criminal again.
>
I would largely agree with that. But I'm not convinced that locking away the offenders is always the best solution - in many circumstances the principles of reparative justice, including properly structured and facilitated meetings between victim and perpetrator, can achieve a better result. It isn't a catch-all answer - such things don't exist. But it is something that we could and should make far more use of.
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, that's certainly an interesting solution to the problem...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
Just don't even think about shipping them off to the colonies.
cheers
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Let's take a child who was abused badly. Not a hypothetical case, but fact. The abusers, plural, are in the middle of a substantial double digit year jail term. The child, bravely, and to rid himself of demons visited them in jail and stood before them, unflinching, and assertive.
A conversation took place, a different one with each of them.
One professes remorse. The other is angry that he is in jail and blames that child, now a man.
The child-that-was is disturbed by the idea of meeting either when they are allowed out of jail. The attempt at a reparative meeting went well enough, but was ineffective in removing that final demon. The abusers are legally barred from coming near the child-that-was. Yet he views the possibility with distaste, the more so since it is possible that they will get paroled early.
Generalising from a particular case like this is hard. My instincts because of what they did and how they did it lead me to the whole "prison is punishment" view, and I would have them serve their time fully. My humanity says that parole is possible because the sentence can be reinstated if they do wrong while on parole.
But what does this do for the child-that-was and his security and peace of mind?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
That would work once. The island would no longer be available.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian said,
>Lets re-open Devils Island, put all the violent prisoners there who have been convicted, and drop a nuke on them.
Jedediah said,
>Just don't even think about shipping them off to the colonies.
I'm afraid to tell you, Jedediah, that Devil's Island is in a colony -- French Guiana.
Luckily, though, it's a French colony, so I don't think any red-blooded British person, American or Australian could possibly have any objections!
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if you're going to do that ... would you mind awfully if I added a couple of persistent offenders to the conflagration?
OK, so neither of them has (as yet) actually stood trial as a war criminal, but on the other hand they have caused me no end of sleepness nights, which has got to be antisocial. And they both have a great and publicly-avowed liking for nukes of all shapes and sizes ... I'm thinking Tony Blair and George W Bush.
Go on, can I add them ? Please? Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on it?
"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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
Lol. I've got no problems with that Deeej - as long as it's French.
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, should have added New Zealander to that list. Sorry, Jedediah!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jedediah
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: Made in NZ
Registered: March 2006
Messages: 170
|
|
|
I've got no problems with that either NW - fire ahead.
E Te Atua tukuna mai ki au te Mauri tauki te tango i nga mea
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
