Youth Crime - so what REALLY is the answer?
Discussion
Given that this is the current media scare - possibly quite rightly so - and given that politicians, sociologists, social workes, parents and police have failed to really tackle it - what would really make a difference?
Does punishment really need to be so harsh that it puts the fear of god into offenders?
Or should we really be focussing on getting as many through the education system to a decent level as many survey's have shown that graduates rarely ever commit muggings and random beatings?
Should we be reforming the legal system? Benefits?
There are so many possible factors here, but removing all the hyperbole and spin what few or one do you think would really make a difference?
Does punishment really need to be so harsh that it puts the fear of god into offenders?
Or should we really be focussing on getting as many through the education system to a decent level as many survey's have shown that graduates rarely ever commit muggings and random beatings?
Should we be reforming the legal system? Benefits?
There are so many possible factors here, but removing all the hyperbole and spin what few or one do you think would really make a difference?
See www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=180960&f=141&h=0
For part of the answer, the punishment of crime when it is committed.
The other more positive solution is to improve our schools, restore discipline and best educational practice.
Another policy that will work is fundamental welfare reform, using as our example the American reform in the mid nineties.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 23 May 13:43
For part of the answer, the punishment of crime when it is committed.
The other more positive solution is to improve our schools, restore discipline and best educational practice.
Another policy that will work is fundamental welfare reform, using as our example the American reform in the mid nineties.
>> Edited by JagLover on Monday 23 May 13:43
Minimum wage up, benefits restricted to a limited number of years and rigorously inspected.
Wider range of subjects taught in schools especially vocational ones, scrap unnecessary SATs, teachers to engage the pupils, but powers of exclusion too.
Treat youth offenders like adult ones, except replace young offender's institutions with secure boot camps where bullies are punished harshly and the value of teamwork and pride in work in taught. It works.
All sexually active underage kids to be restricted in some way. Not sure about what to do though - a reversible vasectomy/hysterectomy in the middle of puberty might be damaging in the long term.
Kids media to be severely policed. No early sexualisation, value of work and good behaviour enforced, no loan ads, no junk food ads, footballers are not role models.
Potential parents to attend parenting classes by law.
New rules on vandalism - blanket CCTV, you break it, you repair it wearing a flourescent boiler suit chained to your similarly-attired mates under the supervision of the police.
More visible police, more involvement of the police in dealing with school troublemakers.
Public powers to deal with potentially violent offenders with more physical methods of restraint, offender has no right to protest or sue if they're in the wrong.
BUT, above all, every learning process must involve understanding the consequences of actions, and the responsibility entailed as a result in order to earn your rights.
Wider range of subjects taught in schools especially vocational ones, scrap unnecessary SATs, teachers to engage the pupils, but powers of exclusion too.
Treat youth offenders like adult ones, except replace young offender's institutions with secure boot camps where bullies are punished harshly and the value of teamwork and pride in work in taught. It works.
All sexually active underage kids to be restricted in some way. Not sure about what to do though - a reversible vasectomy/hysterectomy in the middle of puberty might be damaging in the long term.
Kids media to be severely policed. No early sexualisation, value of work and good behaviour enforced, no loan ads, no junk food ads, footballers are not role models.
Potential parents to attend parenting classes by law.
New rules on vandalism - blanket CCTV, you break it, you repair it wearing a flourescent boiler suit chained to your similarly-attired mates under the supervision of the police.
More visible police, more involvement of the police in dealing with school troublemakers.
Public powers to deal with potentially violent offenders with more physical methods of restraint, offender has no right to protest or sue if they're in the wrong.
BUT, above all, every learning process must involve understanding the consequences of actions, and the responsibility entailed as a result in order to earn your rights.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes. 
Well, sort of. Bringing back the cane would sort out quite a lot of misbehaviour in schools, and may help to instil some respect (or at least fear) of authority into the kids.
From when I was at school, there were a few who didn't care if they got a detention, etc, as they wouldn't turn up for it anyway. If expelled? So what? However, I'm sure none of them would have wanted a beating.
It would also help to cut back on the progression that you tend to see in misbehaviour. It starts out small, and (if not stopped) continues to larger and larger things as the kids find there's no real come back on them about it.
If they found out it was a bad idea to spit/swear at a teacher early on, they'd be less inclined to throw a chair later, IMHO, and so on through their lives.
That's my 2p, anyhow.
Dan
Work Camps.
There needs to be a CLEAR message that in order to attain things in life you need to WORK
Dont want to work and want to be a, for want of a better word, yob?
Fine, we'll take you out of society and force you to work in a work camp.
In the work camp you will work 12 hours a day doing demeaning tasks that the rest of society doesnt want to do.
When you leave the work camp you have a choice, find a job within 6 months or back to the work camp.
I am sick of sponsoring spongers.
There needs to be a CLEAR message that in order to attain things in life you need to WORK
Dont want to work and want to be a, for want of a better word, yob?
Fine, we'll take you out of society and force you to work in a work camp.
In the work camp you will work 12 hours a day doing demeaning tasks that the rest of society doesnt want to do.
When you leave the work camp you have a choice, find a job within 6 months or back to the work camp.
I am sick of sponsoring spongers.
jimothy said:
benefits restricted to a limited number of years and rigorously inspected.
And make them work for it. Why should some chav scum sit on his arse all day living off my money when I have to walk through piles of rubbish on the street.
I think we've got to make a distinction here though.
If we are talking about people who really are actively seeking work (and investigations must be made into these people), especially if you have a raft of qualifications and are trying to find a job in a very competetive field then I don't think you should be made to.
However, if you couldn't be arsed at school and keep turning down jobs because you believe them to be 'beneath you' (like the wasters on Trasha this morning), then you have no right to complain about not having any money and must accept any job that you can do. If you don't have the initiative to specialise and train, yet you rule out doing the jobs you are 'qualified' for, why should taxpayers help you?
Fraudulent incapacity benefits cases need to be weeded out as well.
Plotloss said:
Work Camps.
There needs to be a CLEAR message that in order to attain things in life you need to WORK
Dont want to work and want to be a, for want of a better word, yob?
Fine, we'll take you out of society and force you to work in a work camp.
In the work camp you will work 12 hours a day doing demeaning tasks that the rest of society doesnt want to do.
When you leave the work camp you have a choice, find a job within 6 months or back to the work camp.
I am sick of sponsoring spongers.
Sorry Plotloss but that sounds frighteningly familiar, ie 'Arbeit Mach Frei'.
Not deliberately demeaning tasks or organised camps as such, but if you couldn't be bothered to get any qualifications but keep refusing jobs, you either take what's available (ie what you're 'qualified' for), or we stop supporting you.
People with qualifications look for jobs more actively and elsewhere, and are more likely to take on part-time jobs while they look for the ideal ones.
Twincam16 said:
I think we've got to make a distinction here though.
If we are talking about people who really are actively seeking work (and investigations must be made into these people), especially if you have a raft of qualifications and are trying to find a job in a very competetive field then I don't think you should be made to.
However, if you couldn't be arsed at school and keep turning down jobs because you believe them to be 'beneath you' (like the wasters on Trasha this morning), then you have no right to complain about not having any money and must accept any job that you can do. If you don't have the initiative to specialise and train, yet you rule out doing the jobs you are 'qualified' for, why should taxpayers help you?
I agree, just didn't have time to type out more detail. Society is like a big pot, the more you put in, the more you can take out. If you've out nothing in, you have to work for whatever you get, but if you've been putting in all your life, then to take something back whilst your actively working hard to get another job should be encouraged.
Public campaign - "Is your kid part of the problem? Then you're part of the problem."
Benefits cut to parents of misbehaving/truant kids. Long term policy of reducing benefits that encourage large families and skiving.
Introduce adult education/support centres for parents (linked to benefit payments/tax credits). The 'teenage tearaway' programmes on TV show that a lot of parents really don't know how to deal with their children when things get out of hand.
Increase local police beats.
Give teenagers somewhere to go - youth clubs, after school clubs etc. so they have an alternative to just hanging around. Perhaps tie attendance in with some reward - something that gives them a genuine chance to get the things they want (eg. improve their credit rating, points towards driving test, dvd rental whatever).
Don't push schemes that affect a tiny proportion of the population, or reward/punish only a handful of people. Changes have got to apply to all children equally to build peer pressure. Random violence and other stupidity isn't even remotely premeditated, so offering an obscure chance of being punished, or vague possibility of a prize will not be in their heads when it's needed.
Surely it's about boredom, no aspirations and no feeling of responsibility. If some kid says to his mates "hey, lets throw bricks at passing cars/oaps/each other" you've got to get things to the stage when his mates will turn round and say "Don't be a tw@".
>> Edited by Tuna on Monday 23 May 14:10
Benefits cut to parents of misbehaving/truant kids. Long term policy of reducing benefits that encourage large families and skiving.
Introduce adult education/support centres for parents (linked to benefit payments/tax credits). The 'teenage tearaway' programmes on TV show that a lot of parents really don't know how to deal with their children when things get out of hand.
Increase local police beats.
Give teenagers somewhere to go - youth clubs, after school clubs etc. so they have an alternative to just hanging around. Perhaps tie attendance in with some reward - something that gives them a genuine chance to get the things they want (eg. improve their credit rating, points towards driving test, dvd rental whatever).
Don't push schemes that affect a tiny proportion of the population, or reward/punish only a handful of people. Changes have got to apply to all children equally to build peer pressure. Random violence and other stupidity isn't even remotely premeditated, so offering an obscure chance of being punished, or vague possibility of a prize will not be in their heads when it's needed.
Surely it's about boredom, no aspirations and no feeling of responsibility. If some kid says to his mates "hey, lets throw bricks at passing cars/oaps/each other" you've got to get things to the stage when his mates will turn round and say "Don't be a tw@".
>> Edited by Tuna on Monday 23 May 14:10
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Its time that proper punishment can be dished out.
Coppers, Teachers and Parents should be able to attach the ill behaved to a rack or similar instrument of pain, should the youth be disruptive.
It is not enough to simply take away ones Playstation. They should be starved of food and tied to the front of trucks to be paraded on motorways across the UK for the misbehaviour.
Plotloss said:
Trouble is, if you take away the benefit breast in free society then they will just turn to crime.
We need to enforce that we live in a Meritocracy.
There are few people that are genuinely not capable of earning merit and for those genuine few there needs to be state help of course.
Not necessarily-time limits on benefits would lead to far more of them seeking work than turning to crime in my opinion
jimothy said:
I think we've got to make a distinction here though.
If we are talking about people who really are actively seeking work (and investigations must be made into these people), especially if you have a raft of qualifications and are trying to find a job in a very competetive field then I don't think you should be made to.
However, if you couldn't be arsed at school and keep turning down jobs because you believe them to be 'beneath you' (like the wasters on Trasha this morning), then you have no right to complain about not having any money and must accept any job that you can do. If you don't have the initiative to specialise and train, yet you rule out doing the jobs you are 'qualified' for, why should taxpayers help you?
I agree, just didn't have time to type out more detail. Society is like a big pot, the more you put in, the more you can take out. If you've out nothing in, you have to work for whatever you get, but if you've been putting in all your life, then to take something back whilst your actively working hard to get another job should be encouraged.
Precisely.
Since I was four, I have had it drummed into me that the reason you go to school is so you can get a good job.
"If not" my parents always told me, "You'll be sweeping the streets, you'll never have these nice cars you like, and you'll never have a girlfriend and you'll live in a slum".
Of course, crime never occurred to me at all. If you comitted a crime you went to prison for 100 years.
That would have been back in the days when Thatcherite unemployment affected both my parents - I started school in 1987. Wind things forward 18 years and:
-I'm at university so I can get the qualifications for a good job
-This has given me the satisfaction that I'll never be sweeping the streets
-This summer, I'll buy a car that would've been new and desirable back in 1987
-Nothing concrete on the girlfriend front, but I know that my prospects are attractive
-This student house isn't the worst thing I could be holed up in
-Comitting crimes land you in trouble with the law
However, something has changed. For more and more people, that work ethic isn't there.
Oh, and back in 1987, having a baby at 12 or 14 was unheard of, and having one at 16 was spoken of in hushed tones.
JagLover said:
Trouble is, if you take away the benefit breast in free society then they will just turn to crime.
We need to enforce that we live in a Meritocracy.
There are few people that are genuinely not capable of earning merit and for those genuine few there needs to be state help of course.
Not necessarily-time limits on benefits would lead to far more of them seeking work than turning to crime in my opinion
It would also be a target: 'you have precisely one year from now to get a job' etc.
Tuna said:
Increase local police beatings
>> Edited by Tuna on Monday 23 May 14:10
Absobloominlutely! Corporal punishment to return to schools, if you break a the law you give up your "human" rights, oh and bring back National Service for anyone stooopid enough to wear a hoodie.
I may not be being completely serious, but there's a good compromise of a solution in there somewhere.
Plotloss said:
Trouble is, if you take away the benefit breast in free society then they will just turn to crime.
We need to enforce that we live in a Meritocracy.
There are few people that are genuinely not capable of earning merit and for those genuine few there needs to be state help of course.
This is my exact point of view. People often confuse a meritocratic society with one with no "benefits", however, and this is incorrect.
For a Meritocracy to work each and every citizen has to be able to rise to their potential - which in turn means they require as much education as they can prove they can benefit from - for free. i.e. Keep passing the exams and you can keep going. Stop passing - and its an end to what you get for free and time to start working.
This is, I feel, the antithesis of where our society is heading today - with education becoming expensive and the citizenry having "rights" instead of "opportunities".
Twincam16 said:
Plotloss said:
Trouble is, if you take away the benefit breast in free society then they will just turn to crime.
We need to enforce that we live in a Meritocracy.
There are few people that are genuinely not capable of earning merit and for those genuine few there needs to be state help of course.
Not necessarily-time limits on benefits would lead to far more of them seeking work than turning to crime in my opinion
It would also be a target: 'you have precisely one year from now to get a job' etc.
And it should be for ALL on benefit not just those receiving job seekers allowance. The big burden is the single parents and those on incapacity benefit. Time limits on benefits should be for all of them (except those so disabled that they cannot work)
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff