Crime and Punishment by Harry Kerdean

Harry Kerdean No one class has a monopoly on life experience yet it seems one has the monopoly in decision making. Decisions that don't seem to affect them. Regarding the ever increasing amount of drug addicts and anti social behaviour to me, being someone who wasted much of their life in this way, is the fact these people are choosing this way of life. Added to that the ineffectiveness of the present penal system society seems to be getting worse rather than better. Many people undoubtedly need to be removed from society, but it would be better if these people didn’t reach that stage in the first place. Harsher prisons do nothing. I was personally in a renowned dumping ground in the West Country, which didn’t catch up with the rest of the penal system with regards to in cell electricity an TV for a long time. Time flew there, whereas when I was moved back to civilisation with all mod cons the time dragged. Most cons who went to that dumping ground would say the same, dump, but a bird killer. Of course the other thing it would do is fuel your hatred for the system, justifying the anti-social behaviour. It’s time to find something that works. Maybe now, with the centre right also acknowledging this they can have a serious debate on it, rather than pandering to the public’s lust for harsh, uncompromising, retribution that doesn’t work. I do not remove myself from that, believe I catch you breaking into my house I’m not going to chat therapy, and I know it would do no good. That’s my point, maybe it’s time to look at the whole situation logically rather than emotionally.

I feel that we all have to be careful about what is portrayed in the media. I don't mean this in a scaremongery way, just that what is happening in the media is often imagined to be what people around the country actually think I thought about this recently when Jodie Marsh went on Big Brother and said, 'I just want to show people I'm not like they think I am.' By people, she really meant the media - she has no idea what 'people' think of her. And i bet many people don't think of her at all. The media isn't 'people'. The media is the media, for all its triumphs and faults.

My pet hate is that 'rich' drug takers are often shown in the press as pillars of society, or as something to live up to... This really really annoys me. The only difference is that 'poor' drug takers don't have the spare cash to buy the stuff, and therefore the traditional 'crime' root takes place. The amount of showbizzy, magaziney events that have all sorts of 'illegal drug taking' going on is untrue. And it's seen as aspirational in those circles. And if you have no money, would you really turn to drugs for 'a laugh' or because you are a 'bad person'. Not likely. Judgement really is, in my opinion, one of the easiest things to dole out, but empathy is a completely different one. I know people have to take responsibility for what they do - but sometimes people need help to do it.

Harry Kerdean The media is full of Moral Panic, I read the Daily Mail and debated moving to the Middle-East for my own safety. No seriously I wrote a dissertation on it. Interesting to see the views on youth hadn't changed since the late 1800's. The main problem is the amount of people locked up, over crowding would diminish any chance of rehabilitation. Also is the vulnerability of many of those locked up( nearly eighty percent suffer from two or more mental illnesses). Less than ten percent of children go into the care of the local authorities as a result of their own behaviour yet fifty percent end up in prison. Scary for a civilized society.

i get your point that one class gets to make decisions about the other, but then politics is open to all, and we all have a vote. I do feel however that we have rather odd ideas about prison, the public want punishment, yet they expect prisoners to be rehabilitated. There is also strong evidence to suggest that non-custodial sentences (probation, fines, community service) have no higher rates of recidivism than prison. Though both options unfortunately lead to the swing door policy of offend, release, offend. At least non-custodial sentences are less expensive releasing money for proper rehabilitation such as education, literacy, numeracy and IT - to equip prisoners with the skills nessercary to find work not crime. In defence of the government they have been working on dealing with the cuases fo crime, most notably 'Sure start', which supports families of under 5's by empowering them to find work and bringing vital services to them. Risk factors associated with crime are large families, poverty, poor school attendance etc. So 'Sure start' is away of reducing the affect of some of the factors. Juliet

to look at things logically and not emotionally it seems to me we have to reach the parameters of our systems to find their effectiveness or measure their weakness. You speak of the public’s 'lust for harsh, uncompromising, retribution that doesn’t work.' well I doubt we've given that line of investigation a full trial. Were we to take our punishment to extremes then we'd see its effectivemness or lack thereof {before anyone mentions how ineffective the death sentence was as a deterrent It's my belief that society was very different then and it would have a different effect on the criminals of today} I talking abnout making prison a living nightmare to be in, a modern tasmania as it were. Alternately we could try a lawless society where one was accountable to oneself only and see whether a natural ordfer developed. My point is that what systems we have seem to be niether one thijhng or another and That's where the criminals take advantage.

Most of the problem here is that legislation is an extraordinarily blunt tool. Trying to change society (and it's ills) through laws is like trying to steer an elephant by placing rocks in it's path, the elephant may go the wrong way entirely, or it may simply step over the rock. Yet legislation is the primary tool politicians have available, so it is the one they attempt to use. Prison too, is problematic, because it purpose is muddled, is it to protect society from dangerous individuals, to punish, or to rehabilitate. It could do any one of these effectively, but not all three. Punishment is the trickiest, it must be present in order that prison should serve as a deterent, but is often counter productive. Deterents too, are of very limited use. Human beings are not programmed to take them into account (take me for example, routinely breaking the speed limit just to reduce my commute, at the risk of fines and a driving ban that would really mess up my life). There are no deterents that could work against an edict needing a fix.

I meant to link to this http://thelawwestofealingbroadway.blogspot.com/(link is external) the blog of a magistrate struggling to impliment clumsy laws.

Harry Kerdean ie Julia's comment, I actually believe that Tony Blair would do more on the causes of crime without the right screaming mamby pamby if he was to try something else. After all look who his wife is, she wouldn't be with him otherwise, not to mention the baby a few years ago, if he was the uncaring sod portrayed I doubt baby Leo would have ever been consumed. Maybe with Cameron in agreement he may be able to try something. As for the death sentence, it aint working in America, I dunno if you've ever lived the street life but you risk life and limb every day. Not just violently but just having a fix. The peopel in that position aint worried about life or death, to assume so is naive.

Harry Kerdean Forget to say, as for speeding to work. I imagine more children in the U.K are killed per year by speeding motorists than all the other crimes put together, so why does society see speeding as excusable?

the same reason we ban smoking for health reasons but still let cars in town centers, becuase we all do it and don't want to stop.

Legalise all drugs. Use the money made by the governmant selling it, and the money saved on the police force waging a futile war on drugs, by dealing (whoops!) with addiction. The drug causing major damage to society and myself is alcohol: and it's legal. My own problem in dealing in my addiction to alcohol is my innate obstreperousness. S'my own fault, the great majority of people that I've seen come to A.A. have got sober. Hey, we could have treatment centres above pubs!

Legalise all drugs. Use the money made by the governmant selling it, and the money saved on the police force waging a futile war on drugs, by dealing (whoops!) with addiction. The drug causing major damage to society and myself is alcohol: and it's legal. My own problem in dealing in my addiction to alcohol is my innate obstreperousness. S'my own fault, the great majority of people that I've seen come to A.A. have got sober. Hey, we could have treatment centres above pubs!

Government - I meant.

Government - I meant.

Government - I meant.

Sorry, dodgy 50's computer here, why it posted the last comment 3 times one can only wonder - and weep. The only reason I can't go out and buy a new computer is that I'm a sot.

Well you read it here first. I see that today Lord Birt (Tony Blair's 'blue skies' thinker) recommended that heroin addicts should be given their drugs on the NHS to help reduce crime.

Harry Kerdean And what with Charle's Clarkes announcements late yesterday we could be at last moving in the right direction. Maybe they did all sit down (Opposing parties) and decide enough was enough, the situation needed to be sorted rather than merely being a vote winner on who is toughest on criminals. Mind you,I'm not holding my breath it's over a year since it was admitted that they wouldn't be able to stamp out drug importation, they stop about one in ten, (personally I doubt it's that many) and only one shipment needs to get through to pay for all ten.