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

Hi swl,

But doesn't that simply raise the question of what to do when children pass the bounds of acceptable 'youthful rebellion'? Even allowing that Venables was 'kicking against the system', I'm sure you don't mean that 10-year-olds should be able to do what he did.

On a slightly different note, there is a moment in The Shawshank Redemption when Red (the Morgan Freeman character) goes for his umpteenth parole hearing, and we see the photo on his case file, of a twentysomething man. Isn't there something to be said for the idea that Venables is no longer the same person as the 10-year-old boy who committed those crimes?

(Not, apparently, that the change has been for the better in this instance - but as a general principle)

Gif

swl - there's quite possibly some relevance in what you say to Venables/Thompson. They may not have been rebelling consciously in the way that teenager's do - but you'll doubtless be aware of the criminological theory which says that those who are at the mercy of their circumstances will try to take control by whatever means are available. For some this may involve making fashion choices. For others it may be establishing gang control over their immediate patch. Even wantonly smashing in a bus stop is an act of controlling one's environment.

In the case of Venables - maybe (I admit I'm speculating wildly), his atrocity amounted to 'I'll show them!'

"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." (SWL)

I took a short course in criminology as an undergraduate, and the evidence back then apparently showed that the best possible outcome for young offenders was for them not to get caught. Most of them would grow out of it, or, more likely, would get more of a stake in mainstream society. That might be a steady girlfriend/partner, a job, or something that they're scared of losing. It's people who feel that they have nothing to lose, or no stake in mainstream society, no reason to behave themselves who tend to become criminals.

"There are youngsters who have not broken any laws who spend their teens in much worse conditions than convicted criminals." (AB)

That's probably true, even allowing for the fact that most people who think that prison is some kind of 'holiday camp' usually haven't through what it would feel like to be deprived of your freedom. Freedom isn't a colour TV, a pool table, or access to a gym - it's the ability to make your own decisions about how to spend your free time, and with who.

But if it's true that those who haven't broken the law are living in miserable conditions, that's surely an argument for a fairer, more equal society where we raise the minimum standard of living, rather than an argument for making prisons ever more unpleasant.

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

Somebody I know...very well worked, an her first job, in a centre working with young offenders down in England. The main problem locally was car crime. They set up a scheme where the lads could ride motorbikes and learn to tinker with cars.

The project was so successful that car crime was drastically reduced and... the project was closed down for lack of clients.

Otto:
>>
I took a short course in criminology as an undergraduate, and the evidence back then apparently showed that the best possible outcome for young offenders was for them not to get caught. Most of them would grow out of i

Indeed. A lot of social work/probation work is about avoiding 'uptariffing'. Keep them as far out of the criminal justice system as possible.

In my own practice on Children's Panels - one of our main tenets is 'Minimum Intervention'. Whether it's a case of crime, neglect or abuse (crimes by the child and against the child are treated identically - as welfare issues), the idea is to poke our noses into peoples' lives only to the extent that it will make a positive difference.

I really don't know enough about the Bulger killers to start speculating on their circumstances. Perhaps others with more detailed knowledge ....


<>

Absolutely, something I've long held to be true. But the answer isn't to pour money into people and areas. When somebody gives you something for free it has less value. Successive governments have poured resources into deprived areas hoping to influence outcomes. Most have been unmitigated failures. Many have arguably made things worse by arguably infantilising whole generations and making them dependent upon the state. When state aid is guaranteed, there's nothing to lose in adding to it with a bit of criminal enterprise.

Create the economic environment for real employment, create real consequences for losing that employment and you take away a large part of crime's appeal.


Somebody mentioned earlier about Britain's high prison population? Well, a law a day for 12 years is likely to result in more criminals innit?

swl - you're not wrong...but the problem is how to get private enterprise to invest in such areas. One way is by local development grants - but these are a delicate political balancing act due to the competition and resentment they engender between regions. Also, there's a bit of a chicken and egg situation: why would a company invest in an area of uneducated criminals? *Some* public investment has to be made first. Plus we need infrastructure...etc. etc. (Let's leave aside whether it's fair to expect the public sector to subsidise the private.)

All tricky stuff. I don't think many would advocate welfare as the whole solution - but you can see why it's sometimes the default solution.

It's the default solution because it's the easy solution, the one that pleases most people in the short term and the one that appears to be the most generous in spirit. It's got a lot going for it when couched in those terms.

Why are the kids uneducated (and hence far more likely to become criminals)? I think that is a key area in itself. I don't pretend to know the answer, but I'd be asking questions as an ordinary Joe why our Education system (which has had ample resources given to it) failed so miserably? How on earth can a 21st Century first world nation have literacy and numeracy rates that appear to be going backwards?

Why are we pushing for 50% of kids to become graduates and ignoring the bottom 10%?

Hah! Do you want a Marxist answer to that? I suspect not.

Why not? Even a broken record's right twice a day.

Nah.

That one?

< offtopic >

Topic drift can be fun though, especially as I lurch around a thread like a drunken tanker

Yeah - but it would be a long, convoluted exposition on the nature of economics and its affects on society. I'm not promising an easy answer.

And I suspect - despite your prejudices - that you'd agree with much of it. Contrary to popular belief, Marxism is not the notion that people are trodden down by evil Capitalists. It's more about the consequences of impersonal economic forces. imho, it tells us much about the things we have to manage.

Here's an interesting twist ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8560951.stm

Now this seems to be someone who is truly a victim of the situation.

A group of my acquaintances (friends is too strong a word) were naming that poor bloke as Venables this week.

I think I might stop by with that link.

On R4 last night, that guy was saying that Venables should be exposed...'Because of what he's done to me.'

'That guy' is innocent and looks to the law to protect him.
He is in the situation that the law is protecting Jon Venables from.

I don't think anyone's denying that, AB. Whether or not he said something fatuous about Venables is irrelevant as to whether he should be protected. As should Venables.