The biggest mistakes the British left made....

[Blagsta]

What is your contribution to that agenda then Blagsta or is it just a 'come the day comrade' posture

We've had this before, I'm not doing it again, seeing as you continually misrepresent what I say, yet refuse to actually engage with any arguments put to you.

You're a silly cunt, just like LLETSA, all bluster on here, zero actual political arguments.

 

[Streathamite]

The priority is that the victims of violence and other wrongdoing can see that punishment is being meted out. Don't take the victims side, and instead present people with a load of mealy-mouthed hogwash, and most people will stop listening. And most people have indeed stopped listening to the radical left, not least because of its obsession with social liberalism-which was reinforced because the radical left, for many reasons, lost the strength and the will to win the battle over the economy.

to my surprise, I agree with this entirely

 

[The39thStep]

We don't live in an ideal world, so perhaps the next best thing we can hope for is that the starting point is to ask "what is the best way to achieve justice without moving beyond retribution into revenge?"
That's what, as a one-time student of criminology, intrigues me: How can we, as a society, do so without the currently-popular hunger for victim input (and it is a relatively new phenomenon) shifting the basis of justice too far toward a victim-centric rather than justice-centric POV?

The last part of the sentence is a really good starting point. Although there is little evidence that says that victims have an agenda of retribution. I have been a keen advocate of restorative justice principals , both indirect and direct ,for years whether they are delivered whilst serving a custodial sentence or within the community.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Crime has generally fallen albeit disproportionately in working class areas . Violent crime though is a very mixed picture. it can be argued that Labours expansion of the prison population contributed to that fall in crime, however that isn't sustainable crime reduction .

Nope, it's what has been known in the trade since at least the mid-1970s as "warehousing". Unfortunately, "sustainable crime reduction", at least in the form of thoroughgoing rehabilitative programmes, don't win votes, penality does.

 

[The39thStep]

We've had this before, I'm not doing it again, seeing as you continually misrepresent what I say, yet refuse to actually engage with any arguments put to you.

You're a silly cunt, just like LLETSA, all bluster on here, zero actual political arguments.

LOL!

 

[The39thStep]

Nope, it's what has been known in the trade since at least the mid-1970s as "warehousing". Unfortunately, "sustainable crime reduction", at least in the form of thoroughgoing rehabilitative programmes, don't win votes, penality does.

This is practically what the paper on Justice Reinvestment says .

 

[Blagsta]

You're preaching to the crowd here B. I don't disagree with your arguments about attachment theory & criminal behaviour, or the role of abuse in criminality in later life. But this isn't an argument you have to make to me, it's an argument you need to make to someone who has just had their house broken into for the 5th time. It's an argument you have to make to someone who's been raped, or is terrified to leave their house because as an old person they're an easy target.

It's also an argument you need to make as a reason for behaviour that doesn't look like it's being made as an excuse. For whatever reason, you don't seem able to see that's exactly what the social reasons argument looks like to a great many people. I also suspect that that very argument has had a role in enabling some who commit crime to justify their actions to themselves..

Which is why I think restorative justice approach is a good one. Perpetrators can see the harm they cause and victims can see what may drive some people to crime.

I'm not arguing that all criminals had a bad background btw, despite what idiots like 39 steps think.

 

[DownwardDog]

It did.

The UK only restricted access to benefits for A8 citizens. Many other EU states restricted access to their local labour markets for 2-5 years following the A8 accession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Free_movement_issues

 

[LLETSA]

An analysis of how class inequalities can fuel crime and influence responses to crime.

The trouble is that everybody, particularly among the working class, is a victim of class injustice, to one degree or another, but most people manage to live their whole lives without beating somebody's head in or robbing them, even in the poorest areas. And in those poorest areas in particular, they are understandably annoyed by the parasitical criminal minority that preys on them and are prone to look for justice.

 

[ericjarvis]

Lettsa has a point though, the liberal left including some posters on here never seem to start from the victims point of view.

I don't see how the victim's point of view is relevant when it comes to looking at methods of reducing crime, other than their natural desire to want the levels of crime reduced. This is typical of the insane logic used when discussing crime and punishment. The right wing POV seems to be that if you concentrate on getting revenge for victims of crime then crime will be prevented. The left wing view is that in order to prevent crime you have to look at the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place. In order to prefer the first approach you have to completely ignore the whole matter of crime reduction and instead simply attack any attempt to debate the subject in terms other than "crime is caused by some people being born bad and the only think that can be done is to hurt the bastards as much as possible."

So, no. I don't start from the victim's point of view. I start from established facts and objective evidence and then try to reason logically from there keeping the main objective in mind. If you have a problem with that then I'm afraid I can only see it as total logic fail on your behalf.

Now when it comes to looking at ways to reduce the fear of crime, then I start looking very carefully at the victim's point of view. Because reducing fear of crime isn't going to be done by concentrating on the criminal.

 

[kyser_soze]

Which is why I think restorative justice approach is a good one. Perpetrators can see the harm they cause and victims can see what may drive some people to crime.

I'm not arguing that all criminals had a bad background btw, despite what idiots like 39 steps think.

...and we're in agreement By and large.

Agree on the thing about bad background too (for starters I didn't come from a 'bad' background, but have been an actual crim as well as 'criminal under the law' (i.e. I've broken a law but haven't harmed anyone in the process))

 

[LLETSA]

We've had this before, I'm not doing it again, seeing as you continually misrepresent what I say, yet refuse to actually engage with any arguments put to you.

You're a silly cunt, just like LLETSA, all bluster on here, zero actual political arguments.

It's just that you are annoyed by any politics other than liberalism disguised as anarchism.

 

[ericjarvis]

The trouble is that everybody, particularly among the working class, is a victim of class injustice, to one degree or another, but most people manage to live their whole lives without beating somebody's head in or robbing them, even in the poorest areas. And in those poorest areas in particular, they are understandably annoyed by the parasitical criminal minority that preys on them and are prone to look for justice.

Yes. So the important point is too look at precisely why some people become violent and/or criminal and others don't. We might start by looking at whether or not they see it as their right to respond to a perceived injustice by taking revenge. We might then, possibly, consider what example the state should be setting.

 

[LLETSA]

I don't see how the victim's point of view is relevant when it comes to looking at methods of reducing crime, other than their natural desire to want the levels of crime reduced. This is typical of the insane logic used when discussing crime and punishment. The right wing POV seems to be that if you concentrate on getting revenge for victims of crime then crime will be prevented.

That isn't a right-wing view but one I'd wager most people, rightly or wrongly (and actually unproblematically) subscribe to in most societies. Most people in this society are not right-wing.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The last part of the sentence is a really good starting point. Although there is little evidence that says that victims have an agenda of retribution.

It's a subject it's quite hard to research. I had anecdotal evidence from magistrates and Victim Support workers that victims often find it hard to see beyond their personal experiences, and therefore have difficulty with the idea that justice should be at least nominally neutral.

I have been a keen advocate of restorative justice principals , both indirect and direct ,for years whether they are delivered whilst serving a custodial sentence or within the community.

I'm interested in restorative justice theory and practice. I've researched quite a bit about the Thames Valley experiment, and attended a few conferences back in the 90s. I'm a fan of the idea of witness/victim impact
statements as a method for helping gauging the effects of a crime, and for restorative practice where it's germane. It's not only a sensible way of doing things, but in terms of the community(s) of the victim and criminal, may help facilitate a more "understanding" relationship between elements of the community.

 

[LLETSA]

Yes. So the important point is too look at precisely why some people become violent and/or criminal and others don't. We might start by looking at whether or not they see it as their right to respond to a perceived injustice by taking revenge. We might then, possibly, consider what example the state should be setting.

We can look at it all we want; it changes nothing about the way most victims seek justice and don't care all that much, again rightly or wrongly, about the background of the perpetrator.

 

[TruXta]

The trouble is that everybody, particularly among the working class, is a victim of class injustice, to one degree or another, but most people manage to live their whole lives without beating somebody's head in or robbing them, even in the poorest areas. And in those poorest areas in particular, they are understandably annoyed by the parasitical criminal minority that preys on them and are prone to look for justice.

Ah, so structural explanations work fine to explain relative levels of wealth, but has no bearing on how crime originates? Riiiight. That's that sorted. And FWIW, no, the left hasn't spent most of it's modern history trying to educate the workers about the virtues of rehabilitation. If you look at history Labour has always supported traditional penal responses crime (i.e. prison sentence).

 

[_angel_]

That isn't a right-wing view but one I'd wager most people, rightly or wrongly (and actually unproblematically) subscribe to in most societies. Most people in this society are not right-wing.

I don't really understand the "tough on criminals"="rightwing" automatically.

 

[past caring]

The UK only restricted access to benefits for A8 citizens. Many other EU states restricted access to their local labour markets for 2-5 years following the A8 accession.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Free_movement_issues

It depends what you mean by a "restriction".

Whilst the UK's restrictions have the appearance of limiting entitlement to benefit only, the requirements that A8 nationals register their work, that their work may only be carried out for an "authorised" employer (i.e one that complies with the registration requirements) and is otherwise unlawful and that the restrictions on social security entitlement exclude anyone from entitlement to out-of-work benefits who has not already completed a continuous period of 12 months' registered work are, in practical terms, a restriction on access to the labour market.

 

[TruXta]

I don't really understand the "tough on criminals"="rightwing" automatically.

Because "tough on criminals" has largely come bundled in a cognitive package where crime is seen to result from bad choices made by bad people, which lends itself exquisitely to a right-wing orientation. As soon as you look at situational and contextual causes of crime, it's not so easy to simply blame the bad guy anymore.

 

[Blagsta]

...and we're in agreement By and large.

Agree on the thing about bad background too (for starters I didn't come from a 'bad' background, but have been an actual crim as well as 'criminal under the law' (i.e. I've broken a law but haven't harmed anyone in the process))

Indeed, what "crime" means also has to be analysed. Not all crime is the same.

Of course, arguing about attachment and brain development to someone who has just been burgled would be insulting. However, these arguments, that actually, social conditions affect psychology and the ability of people to think about their actions or take responsibilty for them, do need to be articulated in wider debate.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't really understand the "tough on criminals"="rightwing" automatically.

Usually because it is an attempt, consciously or unconsciously, to deflect attention away from underlying social problems. Crime is committed by bad people and bad people need to be punished.

And where do the bad people come from? Will treating them in a 'tough' manner make them less bad? Usually people who want to be 'tough on criminals' don't get that far in their thought to ask those kinds of questions, partly because they don't like the only answers that the evidence supports. Bad people come from bad places, normally. And treating them in a 'tough' manner will generally just make them worse, particularly if they are young.

 

[ericjarvis]

We don't live in an ideal world, so perhaps the next best thing we can hope for is that the starting point is to ask "what is the best way to achieve justice without moving beyond retribution into revenge?"
That's what, as a one-time student of criminology, intrigues me: How can we, as a society, do so without the currently-popular hunger for victim input (and it is a relatively new phenomenon) shifting the basis of justice too far toward a victim-centric rather than justice-centric POV?

The first thing we have to do is to get across to the vast majority of people the basic principle of justice. That the judgement must relate to the action and not to the person. Too many people see justice in terms of punishing people for being bad people rather than punishing them for a specific crime.

 

[Blagsta]

Yes. So the important point is too look at precisely why some people become violent and/or criminal and others don't. We might start by looking at whether or not they see it as their right to respond to a perceived injustice by taking revenge. We might then, possibly, consider what example the state should be setting.

Indeed.

 

[Blagsta]

I don't really understand the "tough on criminals"="rightwing" automatically.

It's a meaningless soundbite. What do we mean by tough and criminals in this context? Hanging illegal downloaders?

 

[LLETSA]

Yes. So the important point is too look at precisely why some people become violent and/or criminal and others don't. We might start by looking at whether or not they see it as their right to respond to a perceived injustice by taking revenge. We might then, possibly, consider what example the state should be setting.

The state set an example of not executing people and the murder rate went up. The state then set the example of not physically punishing people in schools; schools are now by all accounts more unruly, violent places, and where, in the poorest areas in particular, it is increasingly difficult to learn.

 

[TruXta]

Indeed, what "crime" means also has to be analysed. Not all crime is the same.

Of course, arguing about attachment and brain development to someone who has just been burgled would be insulting. However, these arguments, that actually, social conditions affect psychology and the ability of people to think about their actions or take responsibilty for them, do need to be articulated in wider debate.

At the heart of this lies the fundamental attribution error, which states simply that when we ourselves and people in a group we identify or sympathise with do something bad, we're much more likely to focus on situational factors that drove us to make a bad choice. Vice versa for people we don't like making bad choices, we tend to see them as coming from inner mental dispositions (bad attitudes, bad morals, bad knowledge).

 

[Blagsta]

Because "tough on criminals" has largely come bundled in a cognitive package where crime is seen to result from bad choices made by bad people, which lends itself exquisitely to a right-wing orientation. As soon as you look at situational and contextual causes of crime, it's not so easy to simply blame the bad guy anymore.

Indeed, it's a liberal argument at heart, dependent on atomised individuals with no social context.

 

[kyser_soze]

it's not so easy to simply blame the bad guy anymore

I'd amend to to 'only blame the bad guy'. altho I suspect that's what you mean anyway.

 

[past caring]

I don't see how the victim's point of view is relevant when it comes to looking at methods of reducing crime, other than their natural desire to want the levels of crime reduced. This is typical of the insane logic used when discussing crime and punishment. The right wing POV seems to be that if you concentrate on getting revenge for victims of crime then crime will be prevented. The left wing view is that in order to prevent crime you have to look at the reasons why the crime was committed in the first place. In order to prefer the first approach you have to completely ignore the whole matter of crime reduction and instead simply attack any attempt to debate the subject in terms other than "crime is caused by some people being born bad and the only think that can be done is to hurt the bastards as much as possible."

So, no. I don't start from the victim's point of view. I start from established facts and objective evidence and then try to reason logically from there keeping the main objective in mind. If you have a problem with that then I'm afraid I can only see it as total logic fail on your behalf.

Now when it comes to looking at ways to reduce the fear of crime, then I start looking very carefully at the victim's point of view. Because reducing fear of crime isn't going to be done by concentrating on the criminal.

Therapy? If only the victim would look at it in the right way? if only they had the benefit of our knowledge?