The biggest mistakes the British left made....

[kyser_soze]

Surely that's related to the end of big industry.

It's related to the 'left's failure to apprehend the end of big industry and adjust itself accordingly.

 

[Streathamite]

Surely that's related to the end of big industry.

It is, but it wasn't made inevitable by it.
We also do still have quite a lot of manufacturing in this country-just not as much as before

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Unfortunately, though, the political dogging of criminal justice, combined with the class nature of the criminal justice institutions (and the innate prejudices inherent to such institutions), means that a system of justice that fulfills only a justice function, and doesn't serve to make political statements relating to crime (rather than considering cause and effect), will remain out of reach.

 

[Red Cat]

It's related to the 'left's failure to apprehend the end of big industry and adjust itself accordingly.

By accordingly you mean what?

 

[kyser_soze]

It is, but it wasn't made inevitable by it.
We also do still have quite a lot of manufacturing in this country-just not as much as before

Workforces are smaller, and more spread out geographically. Ironically, the only companies now which have anything like the 000s of people in one place, or spread over a relatively small area, are banks (Citi has 3000+ heads at it's tower at Canary Wharf). This makes it harder for strikes to have the mass impact they had when you've got 30 or 40K people in one factory.

 

[LLETSA]

Really. Having gone to the local comprehensive in a poor rural area, all I can say is that there are no more knives around in schools in Brixton as there were when I was a schoolkid in North Lincolnshire. There doesn't appear to be any more violence in and around schools, particularly where younger children are concerned. Above all exam results are far better, and this clearly seems to be because kids have managed to learn more.

I realise that's a rarely heard view, but that's largely because I came out of a crap education with a modicum of articulacy and literacy so I can compare crap schools with crap schools as opposed to the usual comparison between a good school then and a crap school now. As for violence, I was beaten up on a weekly basis in my first year at comprehensive, basically until I got angry and put one of my assailants in hospital with serious head injuries. I had knives pulled on me several times, and though I was never actually attacked with one, several of my schoolmates were. However it was seen as the normal level of "horseplay" most of the time, and now and again as bullying gone slightly too far. So it wasn't all over the papers.

What I learned from getting the cane was that when sadistic morons are in charge you don't have to do anything wrong to get punished. What many of my schoolmates seemed to learn was that when somebody does something you don't approve of you must physically assault them.

As for comparing murder rates with or without capital punishment, as anyone with even a basic understanding of the scientific method will be able to tell you, it means nothing unless you have a comparison that can exclude other variables. What you actually need to compare is something like the changes in murder rates in US states compared to the national average over periods where capital punishment has been enacted or repealed in that state. I don't have time to go through that right now, but it's a very easy set of stats to sort out. Go do it for yourself.

As I said, I'm merely expressing an opinion based on what I hear. And what I hear about schools from a variety of sources leads me to believe that they have become more violent and unruly places than they were when I was there (I left school in 1979 aged 16). And believe me, the ones I went to were indeed violent and unruly much of the time. And as a result, impossible to learn much in much of the time.

When you're talking about exam results you're on pretty dodgy ground, aren't you? What with widespread allegations of dumbing down and the need for schools to be seen as 'performing' and rising ion the league tables etc.

In any case all this, especially from you, is anecdotal. Here's more: when I received the cane and strap at school, those teachers administering the punishment did not seem to be sadists. There were, of course, some teachers who were feared more than otrhers, including a few nasty fuckers, but I have no way of knowing who was and wasn't a sadist and neither do you. I don't know about them being morons, but when I recall some of the kids and some of the teachers, it becomes clear pretty quickly who the morons were.

Again, I'm not particularly interested in scientific method when it comes to all this. I'm articulating what appears to be the case and may or may not be true-in this case that the murder rate rose after capital punishment was abolished. All that many people seem interested in (although not me) is reintroducing it and seeing if the murder rate falls. I doubt if it'll ever be much different, but there you go. But don't worry-as I said, short of a complete societal collapse/wholesale collapse of the current system of values, it will not be reintroduced.

And I do wish people would stop going obn about the US-a society wholly unlike any other Western society, above all in the crime statistics.

 

[ericjarvis]

I think the fact people wouldn't even have known about it in a lot of cases, would have meant it was easier to get away with. I don't get the impression that Victorian London was a safer place than today's London, for example though.

eta thru looking at the Leeds Mercury from about 100 years ago, there were an awful lot of record of child abuse/ murder/ drunken killings, now obviously this was just the beginning of them starting to investigate these things and report them better. It was quite a shock to compare to the YEP of today.

Ah but the "mistake" you are making is comparing like with like. What we are supposed to do is compare the experience of crime of the Victorian upper and upper middle classes (as portrayed in books and film) with the experience of crime of the modern working class and underclass (as portrayed in books and film). If you do that you can clearly see that life as a moderately wealthy Victorian was far superior to life in poverty in modern times. Which is the core reasoning behind the whole "return to a Victorian golden age" garbage.

Of course. like myself, you may have chosen not to get the lobotomy that would be required to fall for that kind of nonsense.

 

[TruXta]

To be fair, this id not something we know, but something that can only be assumed

We can and do know, as a polls have shown that a majority of people (a narrow majority, but even so) favour the reinstatement of capital punishment. That's as clear an indicator as you'll ever need.

 

[kyser_soze]

By accordingly you mean what?

To the changes in employment patterns, both physical and organisationally. Smaller companies, more agency/contract work, less 'big site' locations etc.

 

[Red Cat]

To the changes in employment patterns, both physical and organisationally. Smaller companies, more agency/contract work, less 'big site' locations etc.

No, I mean how was the left to respond to those changes?

 

[kyser_soze]

Why are you asking me?

 

[ViolentPanda]

The state set an example of not executing people and the murder rate went up.

Was there a causal relationship between the two, though, or is it more reasonable, as well as more in line with historical evidence, to say that social factors unconnected to the death penalty moratorium were responsible?

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.

By all accounts? Really?

 

[LLETSA]

No, you made it quite clear that you believe that the abolition of the death penalty caused murder rates to soar.

No I didn't. Follow LBJ's advice and read what people actually say.

 

[TruXta]

Again, I'm not particularly interested in scientific method when it comes to all this. I'm articulating what appears to be the case and may or may not be true-in this case that the murder rate rose after capital punishment was abolished. All that many people seem interested in (although not me) is reintroducing it and seeing if the murder rate falls. I doubt if it'll ever be much different, but there you go. But don't worry-as I said, short of a complete societal collapse/wholesale collapse of the current system of values, it will not be reintroduced.

Evidence, how does it work? So you want to start killing people for committing crimes, but you don't know and evidently don't care whether or not that'll do anything to stem crime. Nice going fuckspud.

And I do wish people would stop going obn about the US-a society wholly unlike any other Western society, above all in the crime statistics.

Yeah, it's nothing like the UK is it? Completely different society that shares no values or institutions of import?

 

[LLETSA]

And the answer is yes it most likely did. Which proves the square root of fuck all. Did the murder rate rise as the WV Beetle became more popular? Why yes it did! Ergo, ownership of Beetles cause homicide, QED.

Don't be such a prick.

 

[Red Cat]

Why are you asking me?

Because you said the left didn't adjust itself accordingly. I wondered what you think adjusting accordingly entailed.

 

[_angel_]

As I said, I'm merely expressing an opinion based on what I hear. And what I hear about schools from a variety of sources leads me to believe that they have become more violent and unruly places than they were when I was there (I left school in 1979 aged 16). And believe me, the ones I went to were indeed violent and unruly much of the time. And as a result, impossible to learn much in much of the time.

When you're talking about exam results you're on pretty dodgy ground, aren't you? What with widespread allegations of dumbing down and the need for schools to be seen as 'performing' and rising ion the league tables etc.

I do think literacy has improved even since I was at school, I don't think teachers are just allowed to leave maybe 2/3 of the school to fail to gain any GCSEs and a significant minority of total illiteracy, just to concentrate on their A level classes. That DID happen at the school I went to, now they have got about 80% pass rate for 5 GCSEs. I know people say they've got easier, but surely not THAT much easier. It's possible there's less content (my mum marks GCSE papers and this is what she said).
I remember being quite shocked to see so many kids unable to even write properly at the age of 15 or 16, it would seem things aren't as bad as that. Remember the focus on education seems quite recent (as in it mattering that people could read or write who weren't going to be grammar school material).

 

[ViolentPanda]

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

The long-running practice of forming "community safety partnerships" is part of the effort to reduce fear of crime, as are situational crime prevention measures, ranging from lock-fitting projects, CCTV and community warden schemes, landscape re-design and a host of other measures.

Don't think anyone has tried therapeutic solutions yet. Too much risk of turning people who fear crime into Guardian-readers!

 

[TruXta]

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.

I find it exceedingly hard not to read this as coming from an assumption that there is a causal relationship between either capital punishment and crime or corporal punishment and the unruliness of pupils.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe one of the teachers on Urban will be along in a minute to provide a fuller answer, but there is masses of evidence that educational achievement is higher now than ever before. We shouldn't be surprised by that either – mass education has only been in operation for just over a century and a hell of a lot of pedagogical lessons have been learned since then.

 

[TruXta]

Don't be such a prick.

I'll stop being a prick when you stop being a fucking idiot. Do you or do you not agree that correlation does not prove causation? If you can't get your head around that there's really little point in arguing with you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Jesus, is LLETSA arguing for corporal punishment?

Why ask Jesus? He's not likely to know what's going on in LLETSA's mind!

 

[LLETSA]

You see, this, I think is where we part company.

We agree that the failure of the left is its dismissal of working class concerns, its inability to have anything other than its explanation for crime heard and its consequent appearance as an apologist for criminals. But listening to working class concerns and coming up with practical solutions to those concerns does not equate to agreeing with any old reactionary solution presented in response. Policies should be about what works, not simply what people want.

I would argue that a demand for punishment is not necessarily a priority amongst working class communities that suffer high crime levels and that a higher priority might well be for crime reduction, particularly where that manifests itself in the near term and quite visibly. So yes, it is Blagsta's better housing and better drug treatment - but it's also the things that left have never bothered with (or has seen as beneath them) - better street lighting, resident caretakers on estates, a proper concierge system, better youth facilities etc. Practical things that can be campaigned for in the here and now which make a difference but which the traditional left does not dirty its hands.

My own view (not the IWCA one, though there's a few would agree) is that we go for a different drugs policy - not legalisation as such, but heroin/crack/meth whatever, freely available to addicts via their GP/drugs walk-in centre. And a huge, parallel, investment in treatment programmes for those that want to get clear. This is no "drugs liberalisation" policy for the sake of liberalisation but an attempt to break the connection between drug use and crime - the fact that there would no longer be any need to whore or rob etc to pay for a habit would have a marked reduction on crime levels. There would, no doubt, be some who refused to take the opportunity and who would continue to prey on the community - but they would, I think, then become a much smaller minority and one which the community could more readily deal with.

How can we know for sure whether the demand for criminals to receive adequate punishment is a priority in working class communities? I hear it all the time in this particular community and others that I know well, but I have no way of knowing if it is a priority for the majority.

I haven't argued that changing social conditions wouldn't have the desired effect in a lot of cases, although all my life I've been acquainted on and off with the kind of scumbags who would, as far as I have ever been able to tell, be scumbags under any and all circumstances; and I include one or two members of my own family here. This has taughtd me to be sceptical of all-embracing solutions to the problems under discussion. (Not saying you've presented one.)

 

[LLETSA]

Yeah, that's a good post pc. Now LLETSA, before you slink away, care to answer how exactly you know that the abolition of the death penalty caused murder rates to increase?

I will be away from here for a while soon, as it happens, but perhaps unlike you I have plenty of other things to do. So slink off and kiss my arse you little student wanker.

 

[TruXta]

I will be away from here for a while soon, as it happens, but perhaps unlike you I have plenty of other things to do. So slink off and kiss my arse you little student wanker.

Oh noes, he's calling me names. Dear oh dear what am I to do???


Come back when you know your arse from your mouth, eh, there's a good lad.

 

[LLETSA]

Yes it did, a bit. And you are drawing entirely unwarranted conclusions from that fact, as I and others are trying to explain to you.

I blame the pill, personally.

You haven't explained anything whatsoever, although you might well have tried.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You haven't explained anything whatsoever, although you might well have tried.

If you genuinely think that, then I have failed to explain it to you. I'm not sure I could put it any clearer, though.

 

[LLETSA]

How many times do you need to see the answer? Yes, it's up compared to the 60s, but it's still lower than it was in the early 1800s, when people were hanged en mass for pretty fucking petty crimes. How do you explain that one then, without looking at structural factors? Were they simply very very naughty in those days?

It appears, at least on the surface, that as people gained more rights and improved their living and working conditions/general prosperity, the murder rate fell sharply. (Can you point to where I've disputed any of that?) It appears that after capital punishment was abolished, at least in the UK, it began to rise again despite a continuing relative prosperity (even if we are now discovering that rising living standards during the past thirty years or so were largely built on sand.)

 

[ViolentPanda]

My own view (not the IWCA one, though there's a few would agree) is that we go for a different drugs policy - not legalisation as such, but heroin/crack/meth whatever, freely available to addicts via their GP/drugs walk-in centre. And a huge, parallel, investment in treatment programmes for those that want to get clear. This is no "drugs liberalisation" policy for the sake of liberalisation but an attempt to break the connection between drug use and crime - the fact that there would no longer be any need to whore or rob etc to pay for a habit would have a marked reduction on crime levels. There would, no doubt, be some who refused to take the opportunity and who would continue to prey on the community - but they would, I think, then become a much smaller minority and one which the community could more readily deal with.

The Aussies are currently running a similar approach. They've mandated a shift away from busting users and moved toward a harm reduction strategy, putting services in place so that users and their families can access assistance as a first rather than a last resort, and a trial of prescribed maintenance narcotics, as opposed to replacement therapies such as methadone. Obviously, the different states have implemented this to varying degrees, but it's a sensible way to address a particular issue with a particularly invidious set of attendant problems.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It appears that after capital punishment was abolished, at least in the UK, it began to rise again despite a continuing relative prosperity (even if we are now discovering that rising living standards during the past thirty years or so were largely built on sand.)

But if this were due to abolition, you would expect similar rises to follow abolition in other countries. Have a look at the figures. I have, and if you like you could trust me when I say that there is no pattern of murder rates rising after abolition. This is what leads me to the conclusion that that cause of the rise in the UK in the 60s and 70s was very probably not abolition of the death penalty. There are other areas that need looking at, because I see no good reason why the death penalty should act as a deterrent in the UK but not elsewhere.