h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.tomfooleryblog.com/2010/03/comment-on-daily-mail-jon-venables-article-blasts-through-the-stupid-barrier/

>(apparently old-fashioned) idea that once someone has done a prison sentence, they have 'paid their debt to society' and are free to live their lives<

I thought the old fashioned idea was to string 'em up. Well yes I doubt that would happen in this case, even in the old days. But that did sort the dilemna out in many cases, it can't be denied.

I think it's tricky, because I think there are certain people that have types of personality disorder that mean they should never be free. I don't buy this there is good in everyone, even psychopaths, and I mean that in the medical sense. I'd be loathe though to say a 10 year old was in that category, but maybe he is? And he's grown up now, so it should be possible to tell.

I suggest that it's rash to make categorical judgement about 'Criminals'. Each case has its own characteristics. Some criminals may be so dangerous that have to be locked up for the foreseeable future (how many?). Others we can safely tolerate walking our streets.

*However* - judgements in this area can never be certain. It follows that we will always have to accept a degree of risk. The alternative is an absolutist, authoritarian society.

>I suggest that it's rash to make categorical judgement about 'Criminals'.<

What do you mean rash? I'm not being rash about it. I suggest it's something to be assessed over a long period of time by people that have studied the field.

I've read a few things about common indicators such as torturing and killing animals from a young age, no sense of conscience, guilt etc. Yes its probably not that many, but I think such people it exist.

No I don't see two alternatives of accepting risk or an authoritarian society; it's use of knowledge to come to some diagnosis, like for any condition.

A touch of the Carly Simons perhaps? I wasn't meaning you - nor even anyone particular here. I was simply cautioning against looking for *the* solution about what we do with offenders.


>> I suggest it's something to be assessed over a long period of time by people that have studied the field.

There are, indeed, various scoring systems used for risk of offending - but not targeted at the more monstrous crimes. These look at basic things like family stability, whether someone has a job...etc. *as far as I know*, reliable techniques for spotting deranged psychopaths by whether they've strangled kittens are fictional. But I shall double check with the local expert.

>I was simply cautioning against looking for *the* solution about what we do with offenders.<

But no one here is doing that..we are just *exploring things*, in response to Gif's last interesting post.

>There are, indeed, various scoring systems used for risk of offending - but not targeted at the more monstrous crimes. These look at basic things like family stability, whether someone has a job...etc. *as far as I know*, reliable techniques for spotting deranged psychopaths by whether they've strangled kittens are fictional. But I shall double check with the local expert.
<

My substantive point was that people trained in the field should make the decision over time..those things I said, were just what I'd read as examples of reading..I don't pretend to be expert in the field of diagnosing psychopaths.

Personally I'm pleased that people maybe assessed in this way..and sent to a Special Hospital rather than prison. That's why we have such places, to be humane if there's a medical problem. It's nothing to do with emotive labels like 'evil' it's just medical fact..however its caused. We wouldn't have Special Hospitals if it wasn't recognised.

*And that's not to say that is the case in this case..but speaking generally in response to Gif's post.*

But I'm leaving this thread now.

>>But no one here is doing that..we are just *exploring things*,

As was I with my comment.

In a 'normal' family isn't a naughty child punished in some way as part of being taught a lesson in life.
Should punishment be part of rehabilitation ? F15776503?thread=7242154

Well - Thompson and Venables' rehabilitation was conducted in secure accommodation under a very strict regime. Punishment in anyone's books. Without excusing their crime - just imagine spending your teenage years like that.

As to normal families - don't forget that their upbringing was far from normal. 'Society is to blame' is a bit of a cliche, but no decent society should allow children to be brought up as they were. But if you think this gives too much pity to the killers...if they had been helped, they might not have killed James Bulger.

Let's be hard nosed: social work and probation reduce crime.






Old Social Work Joke:

A social worker comes across a guy who's been mugged, lying bleeding in the gutter. 'My god!' she says, 'The person who did that to you really needs help!'

The idea that prison isn't an answer is commonplace in some circles. There's a lot of talk about ending short sentences and even doing away with prison altogether for all but the very worst offenders - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7977420.stm One of the arguments is that short term offenders have a high rate of re-offending. This is a true but rather blinkered approach imo.

I'm not going to drone on and on but it's a fact that the vast majority of crime is committed by young men aged 16-25. Understand that and deal with that and we'll be well on the way to devising better coping strategies.

>>I'm not going to drone on and on but it's a fact that the vast majority of crime is committed by young men aged 16-25<<

Speaking as a member of that demographic (just about) I'd heartily endorse the idea of locking us up for those years and only allowing us out for work and school/uni. Save society so much hassle and money and it'd mean I'd never have to do the shopping.

There are youngsters who have not broken any laws who spend their teens in much worse conditions than convicted criminals.
Perhaps the aspiration of some unfortunate teenagers is to become supported and protected by the law.
What sense is there in a system that offers protection for those who break the law from the society who's laws they break ?
We owe it to offenders to 'teach' them that what they have done is wrong.
Can you RE-habilitate someone who was never habilitated in the first place.?
Think about it. If the offenders had been disciplined at school by the teachers and bullied a bit by fellow students would they have done what they did ?
There were times when a good 'playground' fight settled many problems and created fiendships that stood the test of time. Of course both contestants had to be 'caned' but they understood that when they went into battle.

>>Can you RE-habilitate someone who was never habilitated in the first place.?

Well...yes. One noted example is the rehabilitation of some of Scotland's most dangerous and instutionalised prisoners at the Barlinnie Special Unit. They were taken from inhumane conditions in Peterhead prison where they were locked in prisons and as a result behaved like wild animals. In the unit's more liberal therapeutic regime they were forced to confront their crimes and personal failings in order to reassemble themselves into some semblance of a human being. I'm not making out that it was foolproof - but better than releasing a wild animal at the end of his sentence.

>>We owe it to offenders to 'teach' them that what they have done is wrong.

You're right. I'm not sure that punitive measures are the best way of doing this, though. Isn't there a danger of causing resentment? ('They locked me up, the bastards. I'll show them!). One thing that *does* work, though, that has been consistently been shown to work by those who study these things is something called 'Restorative Justice'. This is an approach whereby offenders are required to confront the wrong that they have done, possibly meeting victims of crime or even of their own crime and - where possible - doing something to make amends.

It's an interesting thing about offenders, and young offenders particularly (and I've met a fair number of them) that they are simply unaware of, firstly, the impact that their crime has on the victims and, secondly, the consequences for them if they are caught. (Note that last part: *the threat of punishment is irrelevant*. They simply don't understand the concept). Much good can be done amongst adolescents and young adults to help them develop their thinking skills.

*All this namby pamby stuff works!* There is excellent evidence for it. But it doesn't sell as well electorally as Bang 'Em Up.



Note how far we've come from John Venables. Is any of this talk of borstal relevant to ten year olds?

>If the offenders had been [...] bullied a bit by fellow students would they have done what they did ?

I was under the impression that there was a link between being bullied and violent behaviour later in life, rather the reverse of what you seem to be suggesting.

But then... I suspect you may be slightly in defending bullying...

Gif

Ditto...the kind of person who makes out that the damn good thrashings he received at school made him the man he is today tends to be a complete bastard.

I think we've moved on from Venables because the OP was comprehensively and thoroughly answered. Did *anyone* support the idea of the family of the victim being kept informed about the criminal's life & career ad infinatum?

I agree. we seem to have drifted a little bit.

OK - we've moved on from that. But still in the Venables territory...is the question of what to do with two asocial ten year olds who committed a horrible crime the same as that of what do do about crime in general? There are *some* common features...but not many.

My personal feeling (and I'm wide open to persuasion and contradiction) is that much crime is simply a system of immaturity. As young men in particular mature, they appear to grow out of criminal behaviour. Many cultures have a very short "coming of age" period where young men kick out against the system. I'm thinking of the Amish who allow their teenagers a year whereby they can effectively go wild before making the choice as to whether they come back to Amish society or not.

Simply put, some cultures provide an "out" for adolescent male behaviours.

Western cultures appear to infanticise young people and therefore the period of adolescent (and subsequent criminal) behaviour is extended.

I think understanding that crime itself is a juvenile issue will help when thinking of the Venables case.

Again, just my personal opinion because I read a book. Or two.

<>

Perview is your friend ...Perview is your friend ...Perview is your friend ...