“The Man With No Smileâ€, otherwise known as Charles Clarke has been going on about about crime (always a bad for a Home Secretary). He’s saying that if people on probation break the law that they should get a harsher sentence than if they weren’t on probation and they broke the law………hhhhmmmm…………
Lets run thought the problems with that.
The current sentences aren’t currently harsh enough, but to change then would:
a) It undermines the entire legal system.
b) Wouldn’t that just be mean on those first time offenders
It also shows that Clarke would prefer to punish those breaking the law than try to stop them breaking it in the first place:
Tough on crime, ignoring the causes of crime.
People re-offend because they come out of a six month sentence and funnily enough the rent on their home hasn’t been paid, so guess what someone else is living there.
Plus it’s a great message to be sending:
“Great you’re out of prison, SO DON’T FUCKING MESSUP AGAINâ€
Why can’t we say:
“Great you’re put of prison, here are some counselling groups you can come to, here is somewhere you can stay until you get back on your feet because we want you to become a good citizenâ€
But that couldn’t happen because we’re New Labour, we’re not here for the working-class, we’re here for the people who don’t go to prison because they can spend 20k on a lawyer!
Have the cabinet sacrificed every single last principal they believed in, in ’97.
Can everyone tell me of a working-class principal that still remains in the cabinet!?
Loading ...
Hummm…I note this one’s anonymous.. obviously this one still wears a flat cap muffler and has some wippits
Howler Monkey said this on April 20th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
Badly educated monkey methinks.
Guido Monkey said this on April 20th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Ah ha - a wishy-washy Liberal! If solving the crime problem’s all so simple it’s a wonder that no government of any complexion anywhere in the world has sorted it…..
Hughes Views said this on April 20th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
Please Guido don’t stop there….
Dr. Freling said this on April 20th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Ah..So it you Freling..Hows the wippets
Howler Monkey said this on April 20th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
“A wishy-washy liberal”
Are you talking about me or Clarke “Hughes Views”?
Jessy and Frank (my wippets) are great, thanks for asking Mr Howler
Dr. Freling said this on April 20th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
See all you monkys tomorow … H.M.
Howler Monkey said this on April 20th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
“Are you talking about me or Clarke” - depends how much red meat I’ve consumed….
btw “a working-class principal that still remains in the cabinet” for example is the one what got my aged in-laws forty quid extra a week thru Pension Credit (and don’t go whining about putting the state pension up - that would waste loadsa money on people who don’t need it cos they’ve got adequate occupational or private pensions)….
Hughes Views said this on April 20th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Trouble with all this is that the causes of crime are, believe it or not, criminals! Wow there’s a serious mind fuck for all the blinkered liberals who still can’t see that most crime is committed by a relatively few people who have made a life choice to persue that route to riches. If it really was solely poverty or “poor life chances” that caused crime then New Labour would have largely eradicated it by now with all their throwing my hard earned dosh at feckless crooks, instead of which they have presided over a serious increase in crime, especially violent crime, whilst at the same time destroying the criminal justice system that at least kept the rest of us safe.
matt said this on April 21st, 2006 at 12:17 am
Matt - you have the gall to call other people blinkered? IF it was as simple as you saw it, then the various hard-edged criminal policies over the years would have dealt with crime. Congratulations on clinging to your Victorian notions.
Ultimately, yes, people have the choice whether or not to commit crimes, there’s no doubt about that; the fact that the criminal class, as you seem to see them, are in a minority still is testament to that. Correlation does not equal causality.
What you’ve overlooked is that grinding poverty and inequality in society devalue that choice to the point where it becomes a meaningless choice for many people. It’s remarkable how few people who can afford Chelsea cruisers and semis in affluent boroughs go about robbing and assaulting random strangers. One of the main reasons we still have crime in spite of Labour’s ‘hurling’ of cash at various sections of society (which is means tested, btw - hardly ‘throwing’ - a degrading and dirty process all round.) is that the inequality gap has in fact widened - many people have been lifted out of poverty, but those on the very bottom are further away than ever.
The majority of crime is a function of the inequality within society, comparing a given area to the norm (racially, on a gender basis, and finanacially), of educational attainment, and of the overall poverty level in an area.
Chris Courage said this on April 21st, 2006 at 10:05 am
Chris I’m afraid you have largely proved my point as I see it, the substitution of cod CSE Sociology for an approach to crime that accepts that the first duty of society is to protect the law abiding and increasingly scared majority from the relatively few criminals is the reason we have experienced an exlosion in crime, especially violent crime. When, like me, you have been burgled twice in 18 months and also been mugged at knifepoint in your own street then perhaps you will actually understand the problem instead of merely “empathising” with the perpetrators.
matt said this on April 23rd, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Sorry to hear that you’ve had such bad experiences, but I don’t think that it in any way gives added gravitas to what you’ve said, or invalidates anything i’ve said. I should apologise for the unnecessary vehemence of my open remark though - uncalled for.
Repeated experiments around tackling root causes of crime and anti-social behaviour - most recently in Dundee’s Families Project - has proven repeatedly to be more effective in terms of outcomes and cost than throwing money into tackling crime at the point of occurrence. The fact that we’ve created a number of structural problems for people (without restating what i’ve already said) and politicians are unwilling to spend the time - it’s a slow process, undoing the harm that’s been done over the last however many years - is the reason. We are, in fact, reaping what we sow. However, I agree with you in part - we *have* lost sight of the fact that society should protect the majority - we’ve also lost sight of how to tackle it, and are pursuing fallacious and reactive, not proactive solutions. I do, however, resent the implication that I don’t understand the problem.
What is needed is not *just* more police, or tougher sentencing, it is a system where we understand why people become criminals, and can prevent most of them being steered into that by factors external to them. Surprisingly few people sit down and actively consider a career in street muggings and burglary. A few do, but believe me, they’re the exception. Once we understand how they get there, we can prevent most falling through the cracks, and punish and most importantly REHABILITATE those who do fall through. Undoubtedly, there will be some who are so persistent and/or dangerous that they need to be locked up for life - so be it.
C
Chris Courage said this on April 23rd, 2006 at 8:31 pm