It really depends on what you view the justice system's aims to be too. There's a fine distinction between what punishes the perpetrator and what benefits society as a whole, before you even have the discussion about what to do, we need to agree what that intention is.
Human Rights: Single mums might not be sent to prison
- Thread starter FoxEye
- Start date
It really depends on what you view the justice system's aims to be too. There's a fine distinction between what punishes the perpetrator and what benefits society as a whole, before you even have the discussion about what to do, we need to agree what that intention is.
Permabanned
Soldato
Who's better placed then?
Soldato
People who work in the system; judges, prison governors, the parole system, statisticians and academics who have studied the system and it's effect on the children. Social services.
Soldato
So the people that you listed then!
Are we just forgetting that the care system has ruined many a child's life?
No? just offended at justice system finding the most equitable option for the child?
**** sake, the care system is a far worse outcome for kids in this country, hopefully its changed recently, but i doubt it considering the reports over the years.
No? just offended at justice system finding the most equitable option for the child?
**** sake, the care system is a far worse outcome for kids in this country, hopefully its changed recently, but i doubt it considering the reports over the years.
Permabanned
Someone who remembers how to run a borstal, with strict discipline, hard graft for the incumbents, and corporal punishment for those that don't fully comply, in my opinion.
Soldato
Apologies, I didn't see the post directly after mine - I sort of unconsciously disregard that fella.
Commissario
And presumably sending them off to the colonies?
Oddly enough the reason we don't do that any more is because, except for those looking at it with rose tinted glasses and ignoring all the evidence, it didn't work.
There are countries that are far "softer" on criminals than we are, but have far lower reoffending rates, oddly enough because working out why people were committing certain types of crime, and dealing with the causes is actually far more efficient and effective than ignoring the causes and dealing with the aftermath.
FYI we mostly don't have basements in this country. We occasionally have cellars, for wine and stuff. But not basements.
The UK is not a state in the US, and we have perfectly good insults without needing to copy them.
Soldato
No no no. This is not how it works. Back in the day there were harsh punishments, capital offences, and the like and there was zero recidivism. Zero. And when it came to career criminals, who didnt exist because there was zero recidivism, they were absolute gentlemen, like the Krays, or would have been if they existed, which they didn't because nobody reoffended.
Also men were men and all the streets had the scent of baking bread.
I dont get the argument around harsher sentencing. We have a 'debate' about this on here every few months. At the end of the day there's no evidence to support harsher sentencing improving outcomes, except a reduction in the crime while the individual is behind bars. But if we can cut reoffending by tackling the cause as opposed to the symptoms then why not do that instead? If it can be achieved then it's a better outcome in terms of crime, and it's likely cheaper. People don't have to agree with the approach but it's not really about reducing crime for them, it's about a desire to punish. That's fine, as long as people are honest about that being their desire and they dont complain about it not reducing reoffending in addition to meeting their requirements around their own social morality.
What if the cause is just pure selfishness?
"I want this and I'm going to steal it because I can."
So what there is the cause? That it's too easy to steal things? That the offender views the theft as the best way to get the item? That the offender really wants the item? That society is to blame for being materialistic?
At what point do you blame the offender, or do you never blame the offender?
"I want this and I'm going to steal it because I can."
So what there is the cause? That it's too easy to steal things? That the offender views the theft as the best way to get the item? That the offender really wants the item? That society is to blame for being materialistic?
At what point do you blame the offender, or do you never blame the offender?
Soldato
Ah, so the flawed system left behind a few decades ago. Gotcha.
There's a couple of threads in SC that you might enjoy - they're living in the past too.
Soldato
It's not about blaming the offender, it's about asking whether there is something that can be done, aside from incarceration, that might provide better outcomes. It's also not about doing away with prisons, but if there's a better approach and it provides better results for a particular case then why not do it?
But is any of this even about rehabilitation? So far it's been framed by that MP as "think of the children's human rights". Not about rehabilitation for offenders.
Just think of the poor chil'uns losing their ma.
In fact what she said was (something along the lines of) "Family law is based around the concept of putting the children first. Criminal law needs to be updated so that it also is centred around the human rights of the children."
Which is odd. Surely the law - esp criminal law - is to protect us from anti-social behaviour. To protect our rights as mostly law-abiding citizens.
But no, apparently now the rights of offenders' children are to be the top concern for justices. Sorry ma'am, I know she mugged you and took your purse, but she has a child. Therefore please be reassured that by not punishing her we are doing the right thing by her child. We're sorry if you don't feel very safe, and indeed you probably aren't, but new policy is the children come first.
I know other countries keep being referred to where punishments are lenient or non-existent.
The idea that you can transplant another country's legal system into the UK, and not account for differing values/upbringing/levels of social cohesion... well, it's nuts. The UK has some right scrotes contained within her, and frankly I'm sure the good people of Norway or Denmark don't suffer to the same extremes as we do (with chavs and miscreants).
Just think of the poor chil'uns losing their ma.
In fact what she said was (something along the lines of) "Family law is based around the concept of putting the children first. Criminal law needs to be updated so that it also is centred around the human rights of the children."
Which is odd. Surely the law - esp criminal law - is to protect us from anti-social behaviour. To protect our rights as mostly law-abiding citizens.
But no, apparently now the rights of offenders' children are to be the top concern for justices. Sorry ma'am, I know she mugged you and took your purse, but she has a child. Therefore please be reassured that by not punishing her we are doing the right thing by her child. We're sorry if you don't feel very safe, and indeed you probably aren't, but new policy is the children come first.
I know other countries keep being referred to where punishments are lenient or non-existent.
The idea that you can transplant another country's legal system into the UK, and not account for differing values/upbringing/levels of social cohesion... well, it's nuts. The UK has some right scrotes contained within her, and frankly I'm sure the good people of Norway or Denmark don't suffer to the same extremes as we do (with chavs and miscreants).
So if the children become criminals due to their mothers interning is it not better to reduce the possibility of that by atleast giving them a family life?
It may have literally been a singular event that could ruin a family and set out paths of injustice in the future if you separate them from the mother. I'm sure the judge has some intelligence to know when this wouldnt be the case in regards to a repeat offender/extremely violent mother, it's hardly like they're just gonna let them murder anyone with no regard.
What about if the children become criminals due to the mother's poor example, and the reinforced idea that they can probably get away with it?
e: nm, really. I've had some semi-serious discussions along these lines, and it's my current understanding that children from miscreant parents are normally completely ****** by age 4 or even earlier. The early years being massively formative, and irreparable damage having already been done by that point.
Basically kids from miscreant parents are pretty much going to be problems for society, guaranteed. It's extremely sad, but true ish.
I guess at least by keeping them with their miscreant parents they aren't robbing/assaulting their foster parents.
Some people should simply not be allowed to breed. And that is a genuine belief that I really do hold.
Last edited:
Soldato
Is there any evidence to back up your certainty, or is it merely an opinion that's sympathetic and therefore useful to the position you're trying to convey?
The re-offendiing rate proves that prison in effective and alternative methods with a proven record should be employed