Malachy Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 You can't guarantee that money spent on anyone will have the desired affect, be that education, reformation or whatever. So potential savings of £30k+ is attractive, but the key word is "potential". That's the same with anyone. You can't guarantee that after ten years of school someone will not come out like Jade. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't educate people. Plus, we are not talking about a specific quantity of money here - if we spend it on prisoners the kids won't get it - it is an additional cost that would, undoubtedly be worth spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamnSaxon Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 What is prison "for"? In the "good old days" of two or three hundred years ago, lesser offences were treated mostly by public humiliation - the stocks, the ducking stool and so on. Prisons were basically a holding facility for the more serious cases who were waiting to be deported to ... who cares where. Well, we can't deport 'em now, and the public humiliations have withered away, and we are left with prisons bulging with people who have done every sort of crime. Surely, if we are going to let them out at some point, we ought to try to educate or train them so they can become more use, and less of a liability, to society. Should prison be hell? No. You're sent to prison as punishment, not for punishment. You should be losing however long it takes of your life learning how to be a decent member of society, something the majority of us learn as kids. And when you come out of prison I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to keep an eye on you for awhile, to make sure you are capable of normal behaviour. Half the problem is the number of laws being introduced. How many new crimes has Blair invented? Thousands? And many more include prison as the main punishment for pretty trivial offences. Hardly surprising that the prison system can't cope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junior Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 You can't guarantee that money spent on anyone will have the desired affect, be that education, reformation or whatever. So potential savings of £30k+ is attractive, but the key word is "potential". That's the same with anyone. You can't guarantee that after ten years of school someone will not come out like Jade. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't educate people. As I said, there are no guarantees. I am not saying don't educate people, I am saying spend the money on those that deserve it. The same potential benefits exists whether the money is spent on criminals or non-criminals. The question is, who deserves it the most? Plus, we are not talking about a specific quantity of money here - if we spend it on prisoners the kids won't get it - it is an additional cost that would, undoubtedly be worth spending. I'll confess that you've lost me a bit here, you seem to be siding with prisoners over children There is a finite amount of money available, IMO whilst there are good, honest people in this country living in poverty, they deserve that money more than prisoners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malachy Posted January 30, 2007 Report Share Posted January 30, 2007 Of course I'm not "siding with prisoners over children". The question is not "who deserves it most?" Yes, there is a finite amount of money, but that money is split into numerous different budgets. What I'm saying is that the cost of educating a prisoner will not equal one child not going to school. It is not that kind of a choice. Prison is an expensive service, but perhaps with a bit of foresight (including prisoner education and more thoughtful sentencing) reoffending would be reduced, and hence, the cost would gradually become less, and the state would be better off financially and socially. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Something which has not been mentioned in this thread yet. What happens if the person you have beaten/castrated/mutilated/executed turns out to be innocent? If you can prove that your criminal justice system is perfect, then some of these more extreme punishments might be justified, but it is well known that our system is far from perfect. We were talking about re-offenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 "The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) With my penchant for quotations, I could not tresist the foregoing. Should you reduce prisons to "hellholes" or places of punishment, it seems to me that there may well possibly be an inevitable knock-on effect, prompting a further increase in serious crime. "Hung for a sheep as for a lamb". The same has happened in the U.S. with the "three strikes" policy of imprisonment, where the perpetrator - knowing they will be sent down for life if caught - sometimes carries out a more serious crime to make the risk worth their while. Even sometimes, is one time too many, in my opinion. And it is my colleagues and I who then have to pick up the pievces and deal with the victims and their families. It is, at least, worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion. And do we really, truly want a system where we are paying our gaolers to actively punish and denigrate others? To explain, I shall end this post with a further quote (forgive the translation, for there are several versions):- "Battle not with dragons, lest ye become a dragon also. And as you gaze into the Abyss, the Abyss gazed also into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Styles Posted January 31, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 "Battle not with dragons, lest ye become a dragon also. And as you gaze into the Abyss, the Abyss gazed also into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche). I know what you are saying but as long as you battle or gaze within the rules of society such as they are now and they dont, you can imprision the dragon within the abyss and have protection from both. Then to stop such a foul beast ever escapeing have huge rocks thrown in to kill the dragon and fill in the abyss. Its common sense to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 Rehabilitation. Is the current system working? No. Proof, because the prisons are overflowing. This has nothing to do with the number of laws. Most laws are not upheld. The police feel that there are more serious crimes to deal with. OK, they are in the know, but when you ignore the chav driving about in his car with his illegally loud exhaust pipe, he then thinks that it's OK to do 90mph up the Tingwall straight, then overtake dangerously, then have a race with his mate, then drive drunk etc., etc. When the inevitable carnage happens everyone looks surprised. Why? We don't get to these events immediately. It is normally via a path of other offences that were committed. The laws are there to protect us from each other. If the law isn't being used it needs to be binned. I am from the days where if a policeman called you over to speak to you it was seen as a fearful experience. You would be terrified that your parents would find out. These days people seem to just not give a toss and believe that they can act with impunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 No. Proof, because the prisons are overflowing. As the population continues to grow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 No. Proof, because the prisons are overflowing. As the population continues to grow. I didn't realise this was a thread discussing the shortcomings of family planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted January 31, 2007 Report Share Posted January 31, 2007 No. Proof, because the prisons are overflowing. As the population continues to grow. I didn't realise this was a thread discussing the shortcomings of family planning. Which takes me here: - http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/bizarre/_more2006/_more10/family-planning-use-rear-entrance-1-DHD.bmp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted February 1, 2007 Report Share Posted February 1, 2007 Bigmouth, I must confess to feeling a trifle vexed and confused as to your recent bold statement, "Most laws are not upheld. The police feel that there are more serious crimes to deal with. OK, they are in the know, but when you ignore the chav driving about in his car with his illegally loud exhaust pipe, he then thinks that it's OK to do 90mph up the Tingwall straight, then overtake dangerously, then have a race with his mate, then drive drunk etc., etc. When the inevitable carnage happens everyone looks surprised. Why? We don't get to these events immediately. It is normally via a path of other offences that were committed. The laws are there to protect us from each other. If the law isn't being used it needs to be binned" My dear fellow, I know of not a single one of my sterling colleagues who believe that they "are in the know" and so do not uphold "most laws". This is akin to my saying that all farmers care not a jot for any health codes or animal legislation as there are instances of CJD amongst the general population, for which the farmer - any farmer - must therefore bear personal responsibility! Where an officer witnesses an infraction of law, he/she is duty bound and obliged to act. While there is an amount of discretion afforded to each officer in certain scenarios, this must be weighed against the public good and the ends of justice being served. For an officer to fail to carry out their duty in a manner such as you describe, this would quite possibly be a case of neglect of duty - a serious charge which, upon investigation and being upheld, would have serious disciplinary ramifications for the officer concerned. I, for one, have never witnessed such neglect in this Area Command. Perhaps you can furnish us with some examples of that which you speak? Unfortunately, road traffic accidents happen. They do not happen because the lazy copper did not stop the lad for his illegally loud exhaust pipe. Why single out "the chav" anyway? Why not the middle-aged man on his mobile phone or the lady not wearing her seat belt? Surely by your logic, if they are also getting away with these crimes, they too will go on to do 90 mph up Tingwall straight, etc? Anyway, I digress. Police are all too aware that little things lead to big things, and that the driver who gets away with one thing MAY commit worse infractions (I hesitate to say will, as there are, no doubt, many amongst us who have infringed some road traffic legislation at some point, your good self perhaps included?). Police are also all too keenly aware of the consequences of poor driving and the aftermath of RTA's. We are, after all, the ones bearing the onerous task of knocking upon the door of the next of kin and informing them in person of their son/daughter/father/mother/loved one's untimely demise. Believe me, sir, when I tell you that this is not a task that any amount of training or waffle can prepare you for, nor does it ever get any easier. To suggest, then, that such a tragedy is the fault of the lazy old copper - no doubt stuffing his/her face with doughnoughts and coffee by the roadside, or hidden in the back of a shop somewhere, instead of doing his/her job - is quite frankly, insulting in the extreme, both to me and my fellow Officers. Is this not the same forum wherein I have read others complaining of draconian road traffic enforcement here in Shetland? I can guarantee you that the officer tasked with overseeing such enforcement in Shetland - which is undertaken on a constant basis here and not in response to national campaigns - would take grave issue with your statement, as have I. Police officers cannot be everywhere. We cannot control the manner in which people drive or behave, although, by judicious and due application of the laws of the land we will, where we witness any infractions, attempt to influence such behaviour through education and enforcement. The only surefire possible solution to that which you suggest is to move towards a Police State. Perhaps we could employ Thought Police, a la Orwell and his nightmarish vision. I, for one, hope we never see that particular development. Your thoughts on how the Police are viewed today are echoed, on occasion, by some of my older colleagues. I do not have an answer, however these days we must acquit ourselves to the letter of the law and no more. Gone are the days of PC Murdoch, et al, when cheeky young rapscallions would be escorted home suspended by an earlobe, no doubt having previously received several sharp cuffs to the same auditory organ by way of chastisement. Gone are the days when most parents would be shocked and horrified to have the Police at their door in response to their offspring's behaviour. This is a problem indicative of societal change and there is, alas, no magic wand which can be waved to make things back to "the way they were" (in my experience, often an all too over-rated and somewhat rose-tinted view of yesteryear, for the most part). We must all deal with things they way they are now, today, and that is surely not just the responsibility of the Police alone. Forgive my misuse of the word, however, the abrogation of responsibility by many areas of society is, perhaps, more at fault, with many all too happy to leave it to the Police and partner agencies while saying "Nothing to do with me, oh no, tut tut, and isn't it shocking the way these young ones behave, tsk tsk, didn't happen in my day, oh no!" I do not have the answer to how to best combat this malaise either, else I would be a wealthy man and we would not be having this discussion. It is, at the very least, perhaps worthy of debate while you consider the eventual outcome in some of these instances - i.e. those who fail or are failed by "the system" and end up as non-paying guests at Her Majesty's prisons. I remain your (collective) faithful servant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 This has nothing to do with the number of laws. Most laws are not upheld. The police feel that there are more serious crimes to deal with. You're half right. Well, theres another reason they don't uphold laws. Statistics. Crime statistics from the police are very unreliable - why? Because if the police have a low-criminal record, it means that they are essentially doing a very good job in preventing crime. However if they have a high crime rate, it can show them to not be doing a good job, or it can show that they are just catching more criminals. Unreliable stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouth Posted February 2, 2007 Report Share Posted February 2, 2007 Bigmouth, I must confess to feeling a trifle vexed and confused as to your recent bold statement, It wasn't supposed to offend or to confuse. The power of body language! My dear fellow, I know of not a single one of my sterling colleagues who believe that they "are in the know" and so do not uphold "most laws". This is akin to my saying that all farmers care not a jot for any health codes or animal legislation as there are instances of CJD amongst the general population, for which the farmer - any farmer - must therefore bear personal responsibility! By in the know I am referring whether your colleagues have more crime to deal with than they can manage so certain crimes are seen as less important, perhaps a fact of life. Where an officer witnesses an infraction of law, he/she is duty bound and obliged to act. While there is an amount of discretion afforded to each officer in certain scenarios, this must be weighed against the public good and the ends of justice being served. For an officer to fail to carry out their duty in a manner such as you describe, this would quite possibly be a case of neglect of duty - a serious charge which, upon investigation and being upheld, would have serious disciplinary ramifications for the officer concerned. I, for one, have never witnessed such neglect in this Area Command. Perhaps you can furnish us with some examples of that which you speak? Ah ha! Let's look at "minor crime" for instance. Every day I see people driving illegally down The Street in Lerwick, but there isn't a copper there to spot it. The problem is that where the copper hasn't seen it. I have also sent you a PM on this subject. Unfortunately, road traffic accidents happen. They do not happen because the lazy copper did not stop the lad for his illegally loud exhaust pipe. Why single out "the chav" anyway? Why not the middle-aged man on his mobile phone or the lady not wearing her seat belt? Surely by your logic, if they are also getting away with these crimes, they too will go on to do 90 mph up Tingwall straight, etc? Anyway, I digress. Chave advertise themselves so stand out more, but the rules should apply to all equally. Road accidents happen for many reasons, driver error being the most usual. What we fail to do in this country is educate drivers as well as we could. There is not even as much as driving skills public information films on the TV as I have seen on the continent. The police play a part in educating drivers, but someone is failing judging by the number of motorists still driving around Shetland talking on mobile phones. It's not the chatting on mobiles that bothers me as much as what happens when they lose concentration, mount the kerb and injure someone. It happens. When people break the law when driving they do so measuring risk. It should be will I injure others, but it is often will I get caught. Police are all too aware that little things lead to big things, and that the driver who gets away with one thing MAY commit worse infractions (I hesitate to say will, as there are, no doubt, many amongst us who have infringed some road traffic legislation at some point, your good self perhaps included?). NEVER!! Oh OK then. Yes I regularly broke the speed limit. I have on one occasion driven without tax. On another I drove on a motorway as a learner. I have never been caught, but I have to say I have felt guilty about what I have done and although I rarely drive at the moment, I try to stick to all of the laws of the road. They are there for a purpose, even if at times I think that they are ridiculous. Police are also all too keenly aware of the consequences of poor driving and the aftermath of RTA's. We are, after all, the ones bearing the onerous task of knocking upon the door of the next of kin and informing them in person of their son/daughter/father/mother/loved one's untimely demise. Believe me, sir, when I tell you that this is not a task that any amount of training or waffle can prepare you for, nor does it ever get any easier. To suggest, then, that such a tragedy is the fault of the lazy old copper - no doubt stuffing his/her face with doughnoughts and coffee by the roadside, or hidden in the back of a shop somewhere, instead of doing his/her job - is quite frankly, insulting in the extreme, both to me and my fellow Officers. I can sympathise with telling the relatives the bad news. When I picked up the severed foot that had been blown off by a terrorist car bomb and popped it in a bag it was unpleasant. I knew that it was expected of me. I had signed up for it and I knew that it was expected for me. We all have a choice and can look for a job elsewhere. I have had the knock on the door in the early hours of the morning. I felt sorry for the poor buggers giving me the bad news. Is this not the same forum wherein I have read others complaining of draconian road traffic enforcement here in Shetland? I can guarantee you that the officer tasked with overseeing such enforcement in Shetland - which is undertaken on a constant basis here and not in response to national campaigns - would take grave issue with your statement, as have I. You can be as draconian as you wish for me. Trying to educate some, who obviously feel that they are invincible might be harder. Police officers cannot be everywhere. We cannot control the manner in which people drive or behave, although, by judicious and due application of the laws of the land we will, where we witness any infractions, attempt to influence such behaviour through education and enforcement. The only surefire possible solution to that which you suggest is to move towards a Police State. Perhaps we could employ Thought Police, a la Orwell and his nightmarish vision. I, for one, hope we never see that particular development. I am in complete agreement with that paragraph. Your thoughts on how the Police are viewed today are echoed, on occasion, by some of my older colleagues. I do not have an answer, however these days we must acquit ourselves to the letter of the law and no more. Gone are the days of PC Murdoch, et al, when cheeky young rapscallions would be escorted home suspended by an earlobe, no doubt having previously received several sharp cuffs to the same auditory organ by way of chastisement. Gone are the days when most parents would be shocked and horrified to have the Police at their door in response to their offspring's behaviour. This is a problem indicative of societal change and there is, alas, no magic wand which can be waved to make things back to "the way they were" (in my experience, often an all too over-rated and somewhat rose-tinted view of yesteryear, for the most part). There was a mixture of fear and respect. When the copper told you he would speak to your parents it was though your whole world have caved in. As far as I am concerned it then struck a good balance, and would still do now, rose tinted glasses or not. We must all deal with things they way they are now, today, and that is surely not just the responsibility of the Police alone. Forgive my misuse of the word, however, the abrogation of responsibility by many areas of society is, perhaps, more at fault, with many all too happy to leave it to the Police and partner agencies while saying "Nothing to do with me, oh no, tut tut, and isn't it shocking the way these young ones behave, tsk tsk, didn't happen in my day, oh no!" I do not have the answer to how to best combat this malaise either, else I would be a wealthy man and we would not be having this discussion. Yes the police get blamed all too often or society's failings. These days it is difficult to know how to discipline your own kids for instance for fear of prosecution. Schools don't have to put up with bad behaviour. They can just exclude the kids. Parents can't. It is, at the very least, perhaps worthy of debate while you consider the eventual outcome in some of these instances - i.e. those who fail or are failed by "the system" and end up as non-paying guests at Her Majesty's prisons. We all make our choices on how we live. We can live a life that effects others negatively or we can choose to rub along with others. Too often there are a list of excuses why they offended. Badly treated by parents who didn't buy the right playstation etc. etc. etc. It is about time that we stopped looking so hard at the rights of individuals and started considering their responsibilities. Hopefully I got all of the quotes in the right place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Posted February 3, 2007 Report Share Posted February 3, 2007 BigMouth, You are a most reasonable and eloquent chap and I can find nothing to take further issue with in your post. I thank you for the PM, and have replied in kind. I did not mean to bemoan out job or make out it is the worst in the world, there are a lot lot worse things I could be doing! I am glad we agree about society in general appearing to be at issue. That is a huge issue, so further debate is called for! Regards to all, Sherlock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.