We've not tried it. How many times do you need it to be said in the thread.
There is no evidence at all to support your position.
Reoffending rates - perhaps the spinless left were right after all...
- Thread starter shoes
- Start date
We've not tried it. How many times do you need it to be said in the thread.
There is no evidence at all to support your position.
This 17 minute video covers many social problems but might help
How economic inequality harms societies
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
How economic inequality harms societies
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
big problem being what of the innocents you kill?
3 wrongful executions then everyone in the justice system gets a double tap to the head?
You mean like the middle eastern countries or many of the countries with very barbaric punishments but a crime rate far higher than our own?
Or even our own legla system in the past, iirc during one of the colonial rebellions we tied the rebels over the end of a cannon then fired it through them.
A harsh punishment is not a deterrent to crime, it is a deterrent to coming quietly.
Last edited:
Uhhh, with what evidence are you saying evidently? Our justice system is one of the ones most based on punishment in the West, and we have a higher rate of crime in comparison with those who have nicey-nicey systems.
You just shot yourself in the foot.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Ok, for the sake of argument let's pick America for the comparator - they do have a justice system that very closely resembles our own (it should since it was originally lifted almost wholesale from the UK) and they also have the three strikes rule in place. The UK has approximately 150 people in prison per 100,000*, the US has around 750 people per 100,000 (figures rounded to the nearest 10 based on the last data I could find on a quick search) - is that really something we want to emulate? This higher prison population in America doesn't necessarily even mean that crime has been reduced there, it just means that they've got a larger prison population as a percentage of overall population - I'm really not seeing much in the way of benefits apart from an appeal to the "hang 'em high" mentality which has never been shown to be much of a deterrent.
*nb this figure is one of the highest in Western Europe and it's pretty damn high in comparison to the rest of the World.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,506
Good grief, none of you, none of you a all seem to be interested in the actual population commiting the crimes.
Yes lets us he scandanavian system, but to do so, we shall need a scandanavian population, we do not have one those. We have a population of chavs and inbreds and immigrants. We need a system which will work for our population.
We do not have such a system, but the scandanavian system certianly will not work.
There is no point even comparing it, to do so it utterly foolish. Such a system might work for little bleeding heart types, indeed, you will likely find they generally don't find themselves in prison in the first place.
You need a system that protects society, as well as punishes offences, and attempts to prevent reoffence, by either training to give an alternative, or by making the crimnal not want to find themselves back where they were.
Start at the beginning, protect society, the worst crimnal scum, I believe, cannot be rehabilitated, it s not in their nature ( go on debate that ) and as such when you lock them away it has t be for long enough that they prove no threat to society
Then you need to deal with those who can be, educate them, early, this means early, this means BEFORE jail, this means in school. Use a process whe inner city families who provide nothing for society are moved to othe areas, so the kids do not all accumulate in one school, making it )£()hole heaven for breeding scum.
Thats half the problem, people are tainted well before they are caught for their first crime.y
Yes lets us he scandanavian system, but to do so, we shall need a scandanavian population, we do not have one those. We have a population of chavs and inbreds and immigrants. We need a system which will work for our population.
We do not have such a system, but the scandanavian system certianly will not work.
There is no point even comparing it, to do so it utterly foolish. Such a system might work for little bleeding heart types, indeed, you will likely find they generally don't find themselves in prison in the first place.
You need a system that protects society, as well as punishes offences, and attempts to prevent reoffence, by either training to give an alternative, or by making the crimnal not want to find themselves back where they were.
Start at the beginning, protect society, the worst crimnal scum, I believe, cannot be rehabilitated, it s not in their nature ( go on debate that ) and as such when you lock them away it has t be for long enough that they prove no threat to society
Then you need to deal with those who can be, educate them, early, this means early, this means BEFORE jail, this means in school. Use a process whe inner city families who provide nothing for society are moved to othe areas, so the kids do not all accumulate in one school, making it )£()hole heaven for breeding scum.
Thats half the problem, people are tainted well before they are caught for their first crime.y
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I see, so which of the three groups do you classify yourself as - chav, inbred or immigrant?
Are the arguments in favour of the Scandinavian system per se being transplanted wholesale or are they actually in favour of adopting a system that is based on rehabilitation (which ours currently isn't really)?
The Scandinavian system(s) might not work if they're taken without any adaptation but that is why it has been made explicit that rehabilitation is not a one size fits all approach, it needs to be tailored to the individual and yes, to a certain extent that will involve considering their culture. However there appears to be no evidence to suggest that we could not use elements of other systems around the World that work well at reducing recidivism and that includes the Scandinavian systems(s).
Has anyone suggested that all criminals can be rehabilitated? It's relevant to consider them in terms of how you deal with them but it's not necessarily relevant in how you deal with the majority of offenders, many of whom can be rehabilitated to greater or lesser degrees.
Education is or should be part of the solution so that's a good start. Forced moves are maybe less of an ideal option but if you can give people the choice to move and a reason why it might be beneficial for them or their children to do so then that might work.
I'd also note that the Scandinavians are not, contrary to some opinions, universally a homogenously wonderful group of superpersons who are psychologically adjusted by culture to be better than everyone else. They are people like any other, they have the good, the bad and all that is inbetween represented on that particular spectrum of behaviour.
Mobility within society is big part of equation. Countries with highest crime / prison population are also the countries with lowest income mobility and widest spread between lower 20% income and top 20% income.
Richard Wilkinson spells it all out
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
Richard Wilkinson spells it all out
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
This pretty much.
But hey, it's just the combination of 100's of statistical studies - much worse than say the opinion of a random forum user.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
People don't want to face up to the fact, thoug
I'm actually quite pleasantly surprised with some of the more right learning members of the forum - nice to see people go against the grain of party ideology in favour of the evidence.
If we wan't a lower crime rate then we will need to change of number of our cultural mechanisms to match the Nordic regions/Japan.
This isn't a left/right wing argument - it's a simple case of doing what we know works.
If we wan't a lower crime rate then we will need to change of number of our cultural mechanisms to match the Nordic regions/Japan.
This isn't a left/right wing argument - it's a simple case of doing what we know works.
In the ideal world I'd agree with you, and I always have the opinion that if a persons done the time, they've paid fully for their crime.
However I don't think methods that the Japs and the Nords use would work here. The reason being a fundemental difference in the culture and behaviour of the population as a whole.
The tsunami that hit Japan decimated large swathes, and yet there was a tremendous community atmosphere, countrywide cohesion and a lack of riots etc If it had happened in Britain (Look at yanky land to see the aftermath of Katrina), we would not have done so well. Well, a proportion of decent would have, but a fair few would have broken ranks.
There is no social culture in this country, we're a hot pot of different cultures, ethnicities and creeds which in my opinion has lead to the problems we face today.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Exactly. But try tell that to The Great British Pleblic, OP included. Our government is largely driven by popular whim and opinion which is wholly misinformed and falls foul to all manners of fallacies and an inability to think rationally.
I agree, which is why we would need to change a number of cultural mechanisms.
Reducing income inequality does seem to reduce a significant number of negative social problems - it's not a specific cultural trend either, as it works in Canada, Japan & Norway - all of which have totally different cultures.
It's the social-economic structure which seems to be the most prevalent.
But I do agree, we can't just change our justice system, it would require multiple others changes.
True, which applies most certainly to both groups, the left & the right.
What I care about are logical solutions, which the evidence proves (or at least very strongly suggests) will actually solve the problem in question.
I don't care if it comes from the Tory's, or Labour - just if it actually works.
People get bogged down in ideology & lose sight of what actually matters - in this case reducing the overall crime rates.
What is the actual solution then? Apart from a not very in depth report on a Scandinavian system, no one has actually suggested the solution.
So is it actually to treat criminals better than the victims, but make the victims pay for it? If so then how should they be treated, how should they be educated and made to change their ways?
So is it actually to treat criminals better than the victims, but make the victims pay for it? If so then how should they be treated, how should they be educated and made to change their ways?
There you go again with the hyperbole and appeals to emotion. They make you look like someone just trying to get arguments, rather than understand.
One prevailing idea is the idea of being able to understand crime at it's root. You understand the causes of crime and tackle them, not simply the criminals. Criminals should be punished - imprisonment is punishment - but they also should be understood. Criminals are people like you and I but for some reason something has gone wrong. Is that biology? Environmental factors? Lack of education? Too much education? Is it a social issue?
It's already established that poorer people are more likely to be involved in crime (as a perpetrator or a victim).
(in terms of a practical solution, I have neither the time or desire to go through it with you in depth, but the idea would be that an increase in rehabilitation services (addictions, psychological problems), education, more appropriate sentencing, learning to understand why they commit crimes through study, to help ascertain the reasons and tackle them)
Once we can understand more about WHY people commit crimes, then we can actually make REALISTIC and VIABLE attempts to reduce it (I daresay we will never stop crime completely), simply 'doing away' with criminals doesn't help that endeavour.
Super-harsh penalties for crime doesn't work. We have ancient examples and modern examples where you have all manner of heinous punishments (castration, execution, torture, humiliation, rape) and yet they still have plenty of criminals. We used to have it in this very country, yet even then we figured that it wasn't working and that it just wasn't right.
You just can't justify committing these acts on people on any other reason other than they hold themselves, or because you are emotionally compromised (i.e. desiring vengeance).
You also have other factors, such as the state of our current prison system, capacity, effectiveness of staff, location, living conditions, health of prisoners, etc to consider. It's quite a well known fact that drugs are a serious problem in prison with them being smuggled in. Then you have the violence, the rape, the gangs, etc - all counter-intuitive to turning someone who has done a crime into someone who can give back in some fashion to society.
The current system is not perfect by any means. It is not as 'liberal' or 'left' as you might think. Very little is done to help criminals at the moment, certainly not enough, and there are problems with overcrowding, and even sentencing which need to be addressed - but to take a step backwards in terms of justice is not the way to go.
Last edited:
Part of the solution is to treat everybody better, on the hope less people become criminals (overall), based on the evidence it seems to work.
It's not just a case of treating the "criminals well" it's a case of treating the lower classes well, so less become criminals & along with that - rehabilitating the criminals so they are less likely to offend.
It's not just a case of treating the "criminals well" it's a case of treating the lower classes well, so less become criminals & along with that - rehabilitating the criminals so they are less likely to offend.
I've always thought that a lack of self belief is likely to be the motivation behind a lot of crimes for benefit - theft, mugging, burglary - basically the perpetrator not believing that they have the means to sustain the lifestyle the wish without resorting to crime. If one feels that they haven't the skills, education, connections, ability or drive to fulfil their ambitions and dreams, is this more likely to lead to crime?
Upbringing must have a lot to do with this - I know many people from many walks of life and the only one who has been through the penal system is Dominic - and he was brought up by my aunt who frankly is a cross waynetta slob and vicky pollard. Everyone else I know, even those raised on council estates in the 80's have grown up to at least be self sufficient and crime free. Most of them are doing well for themselves.
Has such an in depth study been conducted in the UK? I will be googling the Scandinavian system later and will try to get a more in depth overview of it, however I feel that out country is going to be very different in terms of the distribution of wealth, education, population, multiculturalism and economic factors, so I would be very interested in reading a study conducted here.
I am emotionally compromised, I find crime abhorrent particularly since my family has been the victim of crimes on several occasions. The only conviction which came about led to the criminal being let off (my brother was awarded £300 compensation from the **** in in 2003 for a broken nose, of which he has still never received a penny).
Ultimately I would love to see the crime rate drop but I can't see that happening without some serious social engineering.
I totally agree with this as a preventative measure, however from a rehabilitation point of view I'm not convinced. I'm open to studies though, and as mentioned above I'd be very interested to read a comprehensive study carried out in the UK on the subject of rehabilitation.