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

Hi Maria,

>open a school and a prison will close

I like that...

Gif

Way back when it was said:-
1 - Actions speak loader than words.
2 - The punishment should fit the crime
3 - An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

1) and 3) are obviously out and 2) was replaced by "The punishment should fit the criminal"

"Why this rush to defend a criminal?

Because legally speaking he's already been judged and has been sentenced for his previous crime. So far he has only been accused for any more recent crimes.

Most of all because he's a human like me and you.


"Why the need to portray a killer as a victim? Our whole society is a victim of people like Venables, little thugs and hoodlums who have an army of do-gooders and social workers to speak for them.

because he's a criminal AND a victim himself. Life is a bit more complicated than a lot of people like to pretend. For instance you say there is an army of bleeding hearts tending to the every need of hoodies when the plain and simple fact is that there isnt. As a do-gooder who was once a hoodie theiving scum trouble maker I can tell you there just arent, werent before and are never likely to be enough people looking out for the welfare and guidance of children and teenagers. Some people are lucky enough to have the right people around them all their life. For me it was a case of having a tough time between 13 and 16. Mostly because the man who was responsible for my discipline and guidance kept disappearing into a cancer unit and I was more suceptible to all the shit that had always been around me, but Id been literally nurtured through before. I finally started to get it together *for* him because I had people to support the improvements I was making to my life.

I see a lot of youngsters who have no one to please but other criminals and no one to guide them in a positive way. "Army" dont make me bloody laugh!


"But who speaks for the dead? Who speaks for the maimed and the disfigured, the real victims? Criminals get informed of every twist and turn in a trial. They get appointed expensive legal representation to try to get them off or to barter down their sentences. What do the victims get? Too often the Procurator Fiscal (or CPS) treats them as an annoying inconvenience. They have no right to be told anything.

The "Red Tops" and people like you seem to have this idea that anyone who commits a crime cant also be a victim. That's a bit like saying that when I have a child I stop being my mother's child? Doctors can be patients too, shop workers are also customers, you can occasionaly talk sense...

Yes victims can and do get shoody treatment from the justice system but that is no reason to decry the fact that occassionally some criminals get "too much" support because foaming at the mouth (small c) conservatives like you think we should be birching shoplifters in the High Street

And there we see a different viewpoint. Yours comes from working with offenders, mines comes from working with victims. I see first hand how little the state does for victims and how they suffer often repeatedly from their attackers.

There is one over-riding fact that cannot be waffled away. Our prisons are full and crime is at its lowest for years. There is an obvious connection.

We live in a society which says we are pretty much "all" victims. Victims of capitalism, victims of not earning enough, victims of a poor education, victims of the environment, victims of sexism, racism, ageism, sizeism.

The vast majority of us manage to be victims without committing crime.

It's one thing understanding *why* a criminal offends. That makes perfect sense to know that A + B + C can sometimes lead to D. However, it's an entirely different thing to pretend that A + B + C offer an *excuse* for D. But that's what we see every day in the courts and it is used to lower and/or reduce the impact of sentencing.

Maybe Im thick or maybe your not articulating your point very well.

Like I said I was supported to change my behaviour and fell/jumped into criminality when I wasnt supported/guided.

Now Im largely responsible for my own direction (no man is an island) I still break the law, but its not the same things and people dont get as upset about cyclists cutting out roundabouts and the other kinds of crime adults get upto with no obvious victim.

Thing is you seem to be saying that the 13 year old me should have been as upstanding as the 38 year old me, that if anything i should be worse now because Ive been victim to more stuff?...I hope Im misunderstanding you.

My perspective comes from understanding victims AND offenders and realising that the two things are not mutually exclusive. Ive been and in a philosophical sense will always be both. Its a little bit like cancer in a way. Some people get it from passive smoking others smoke forty a day and live to be 90.

Lets run with the cancer analogy.

I consider myself to be in remission from crime. Sure I take steps to stop things getting worse again but know that getting over a tricky patch is not immunity.

You seem to see criminality more as an appendicitis. I think crminality is not a problem with the liver or brain its the tumour that needs to be treated and the liver nurtured.

Society needs care not for the part causing te problem to be cut out.

Im not going to get into an argument about crime rates because they are statistics that say more about who and how measured than the thing being measured.

No, I see criminality as primarily a matter of choice. Nobody forces someone to steal a car. Nobody forces someone to try and take a random stranger's head off with a meat cleaver. When presented with the same options two people with virtually identical backgrounds (so far as is possible) take different options. Why?

I recently visited a school in a pretty rough area of Glasgow. The kids there ticked every box of disadvantage you could think of. I was talking to a class of 14/15 year olds whose parents were drug addicts and alcoholics. For some of them, the school dinner was the only hot meal of the day. At home they slept on blankets or bare mattresses because their parents had sold the furniture. In place of parental contact, they were given x-boxes and flat screen tellies.

The school was nothing special. It didn't have extra staff - in fact it was desperate for more staff as it was overcrowded and funding was short. They didn't have any special support measures in place or anything like that.

The remarkable thing was that only one of these kids had been in trouble with the authorities. All of them were, if we're to believe what we're told, prime candidates for criminality. By 14/15 these kids, given their shocking background and circumstances *should* have been in trouble a lot more. But they weren't.

Why is that?

IMO, crime is mostly a matter of choice.

Comparing it to disease makes it sound like it's inevitable. It never is - there's almost always a choice.

Clearly Jon Venables was never disciplined. It needs to be clearly understood that smacking is an acceptable form of punishment and that if parents don't use it then someone else will. A child that touches a hot oven does not usually touch it again.
Crimes have been defined in law. Shouldn't punishments be specifically defined in the same way.
eg. By law anyone committed of rape has to be be chemically castrated.
If found guilty of a brutal crime you will be flogged and then given any form of treatment found to be necessary.
Is it too much to ask that the 'stocks' and 'ball and chain' and 'hard labour' are used as punishment for appropriate crimes.
Prison life is a society in it's own right and the behavior of prisoners needs to be punished in the same way. Forget time off for good behavior, it's extended time for bad. If drugs, illegal use of mobile phones and general behavior can not be controlled in prison, what chance of controlling it in society at large.

Well no AB, we're not going to turn the clock back. Those punishments fitted a different time and age - they have no place now.

LONG POST ALERT

swl

>>I may have mis-remembered Ed from earlier in the thread (and I apologise in advance if I did) but I'm sure he cast the same aspersions on the professional capabilities of the judiciary but spoke in defence of those who decided to release Venables.


Yes you did - or if not misremembered...you're misrepresenting. I did *not* criticise the judge's conduct of the trial. What I *would* criticise is whether the two should have undergone a trial under the normal, adult procedures in the first place - and this on the reports of many observers of the trial to whom it appeared that the two were unable to understand or follow the procedings. It is a basic principle that defendants should be able to direct their counsel. If they are unable to do that, they should be declared unfit to stand trial.

This leaves the public prosecutors (what was it called back then? The Attorney General's Office?). So am I blaming them? Well...their hands were tied by a legal system which carves in stone an age at which a child should stand as an adult.

So if anyone's to blame it's we the electorate. I doubt any political party would dare advocate reforming the law.


>>in defence of those who decided to release Venables.

Would that be the qualified and officially appointed people who, acting under the law, made the assessments they were required to do? Following what I'm sure will have been careful consideration, they released a young man once they'd decided that he was no longer likely to torture and bludgeon to death a defencele two year old. As such, they fulfilled the judge's imposition of an indeterminate sentence with minimum tariff. Are you questioning the judge's professional competence in opposing such a sentence?

And don't forget - he's out under licence. A condition of his licence is that he can be called back to serve his indeterminate sentence if he ha committed any offence of reasonable seriousness. Every effort will have been made to put him on the straight and narrow - none of the professionals will have wanted him to ee him back inside - but there could never be an absolute guarantee that he would not commit offend in *any* way. How could there be? (In fact a young man who has spent his teenage years in an institution, no matter how benign, is probably more at risk of offending than the average person. But he's very unlikely to kill another two year old.)

(Incidentally - do you think any professional *wants* to release someone who's going to go out and kill a toddler?)



SO: Where's the issue here? None as far as I can see. A child has served time for a brutal murder. He's been released when it was safe to do so. Years later he's reoffended and is now re-imprisoned pending trial.

Is the fuss about the current situation? Or is it that emotions surrounding te original atrocity haven't been processed?

Sorry Ed - I didn't mean to misrepresent you. It just came across (to me) that you perhaps downplayed the professionalism and abilities of the judiciary whilst praising the professionalism and abilities of those who released Venables.

<> Was this point brought up by the defence? Was it brought up on appeal?

I think an issue here is that a child has served *some* time in prison for a murder. Eight years - some people may think this should have been longer.

<> That is very much a moot point given the fact that he has been put back into prison after allegations of some kind of re-offending. Without knowing the nature of the offences or indeed, if he's guilty of them, we can't say it was safe to release him in the first place.

>>I think an issue here is that a child has served *some* time in prison for a murder. Eight years - some people may think this should have been longer.

Indeed. That's the issue - whether or not people agree with the tariff. But it's being presented by some as naive do-gooders who let him out with a at on the head.


<>
>>That is very much a moot point given the fact that he has been put back into prison after allegations of some kind of re-offending. Without knowing the nature of the offences or indeed, if he's guilty of them, we can't say it was safe to release him in the first place.

No - we can't. But what has filled that vacuum? All of a sudden we're transported back seventeen years and thhe discussion and emotions are about the original atrocity rather than any recent offence.

People commit crimes. People who have served time re-offend. I don't know why anyone would see a particular link an unusually horrific crime commited by someone aged ten to an offence committed by the same person in adulthood.

Well for me it's the underlying assumption that crime is inevitable and we should somehow come to view it as acceptable that's offensive. Understanding the reasons why has somehow turned into a justification for unacceptable behaviour. I can't help but think we see this throughout society, a refusal to accept personal responsibility. We've abrogated so many functions to the state that we now blame outside agencies for our own failings. More obese people is often portrayed as the fault of advertisers for example. Crime is presented as "an inevitable by-product of inequality. As individuals are merely actors subjected to societal pressures, somehow it's not their fault" - goes the argument.

For me - and I accept I might be ploughing a lone furrow here - that's a nonsense. We all bear personal responsibility for our actions and we almost always have a choice. The "poor me" approach is an open invitation for ever-increasing state intervention in the detail of our lives.

As for Venables - it may well prove to be the case that his sentence was inadequate and he should not have been released. Equally, it may be that he has done nothing wrong and the parole board will be totally vindicated. We here just don't know.

"....inevitability...."

I think that's to miss the point somewhat. There are different levels to discussions - one is about an individual and groups of individuals, and another is about society as a whole, and about policy.

Clearly it's wrong to say that it's "inevitable" that any given individual growing up in poverty and disadvantage of various kinds will turn to crime. But then no-one (to my knowledge) has ever seriously argued otherwise. Apart from those who don't believe in free will (or in very much free will), no-one seriously argues that personal choices aren't key. It's at a policy or a society level - not the level of the individual - that the arguments that increases in poverty, inequality, deprivation, and lack of opportunities lead to an increase in crime operate. It's not an excuse for individuals, but it's an explanation (and there may be others) for the phenomenon of kids from deprived backgrounds being far more likely to end up in trouble with the law.

When I'm in a metaphysical mood, I do wonder about choice and free will. In a medical setting we talk about "informed consent" and "informed decision making" - it's not an informed choice for me to choose euthanasia if I don't know about the other options. I wonder whether this might be true in a wider context too - if I don't know what my options are and can't appraise them adequately, to what extent are my choices free ones?

>>
For me - and I accept I might be ploughing a lone furrow here - that's a nonsense. We all bear personal responsibility for our actions and we almost always have a choice.


Which is fine...except that some have more choices available than others. Take as an example the issue of gang violence. In some areas, a teenager wishing to venture outdoors has little option but to be affiliated with a gang, and this means having to take on all the associated behaviours which might lead to trouble with the police, exclusion from school, inability to get a job...an ever decreasing diminution of choice...and all from the quite reasonable desire to walk the street without being set upon by the local neds.

It's all very well to say 'He could just have stayed indoors.' But you or I don't have to make such choices.

You're right SWL, choice and the ease of following the choices one makes is key.

It feels a long time ago but I do remember being a teenager and my choices were not firm they needed an overall push from my background to firm them up.

We all know that people dont choose to be gay its an intrinsic thing. Just like some people are more unruly than others. In comparing sexuality and criminality Im trying to show how simple urges within us can easily be seen as bad by others. The simple and natural urge to give your wife a peck on the lips is illegal in some places.

Laws are created by humans and like other creations of humans like Jimmy Choo shoes and Vivienne Westwood dresses they seem good in someones head and even get plaudits from many, but are none the less sometimes a weird concoction that dont always fit humans too well.

Now because people are different some people can get with the programme easier than others while some have a really hard time following the rules. Add to this a family or local backdrop which drags you towards criminality and your choices are not set in stone but certainly influenced to a greater extent.

Which is why I used the analogy about cancers caused by environmental toxins. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes your numbers up. DNA and other factors play a part but if you expose people to enough negative factors the chances pile up and overall the numbers reflect the the bad influences.

Tell me SWL what is wrong with turning back. Have you never made a wrong turning and wished you could go back.
In law I believe that looking back is called a precedence.
If care is not taken the case of, Jon Venables will create a catastrophic precedence.
The law is an ass and unless it learns from the past it will continue to make a bigger ass of itself.
Have you never come across a situation where you have said to yourself I wish I had listened ?
The problem today is that too many people fail to listen and learn.
So many things are learned from past experience, some the hard way.
Let me repeat a child who burns his hand on a hot stove hardly ever does so again. A short sharp lesson.
Looking back I know full well where I have made mistakes and mistakes have been made by others.
To the detriment of society we have too many people today who do not suffer the consequences of their actions.
In my teens capital and corporal punishment were still in the rule book, borstal and the birch were available deterrents and I was aware of the before the age of ten. Your school teacher, your doctor your banker, the vicar and the local bobby were all respected pillars of society and above all you had to show respect for your elders. Civility ruled, ladies first stand up and offer your seat to someone who needs it. Take your hat off indoors and many more acts of respect and civility.
You say it would be wrong to turn back the clock. You haven't lived.

Poe's Law?

Harsh Ed - just a different viewpoint from a different experience.

AB - in your youth, homosexuality was illegal. Now it's practically compulsory. Society changes. And I'm kinda glad we don't burn witches any more.

Blicky - Some laws change, it's true. Which side of the road to drive on, acceptable language etc etc. But surely there are some that are constant - thieving, killing and rape, for example. Do we need to teach kids not to kill?

Hold on ... is this veering towards Ten Commandments stuff?

AB, I hear what you're saying about learning from experience, but the link you posted elsewhere was to a tale of someone who went to Borstal...and still went on to commit offences for which he was imprisoned. Now, I know one example proves nothing at all, but we're in danger of seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses here: what we had in the past was certainly not perfect, and it would be short-sighted to try to recreate it without recognising that the world is a different place.