Poverty is no excuse for crime..

Poll

Is the UK to soft on crime

It's about time we got tough on crime and an end to prison been a nice place to live in the eyes of some (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2163904/Jailed-murderer-Lance-Rudge-boasts-cushy-life-bars-says-doesnt-want-leave.html)

Why do prisoner's get TVs and so many luxuries which the people who fund this have to struggle to afford?
There are pensioners who have to choose between eating or heating!

I think life in prison should be as basic as possible- food enough to live (i.e bread,porridge and water) rather than food to enjoy (i.e steak*)
Though I think the best way of reducing crime is a mixture of horrible prison life and good rehabilitation

Poverty is no excuse for crime - in this country no one has to go hungry and no one has to sleep on the streets- the welfare state provides. It normally doesn't allow benefit claimants to have a luxurious lifestyle but it's enough to keep people surviving.

We shouldn't excuse criminals because they are poor- this is a country where you can succeed if you channel your energy/talent in a LEGAL way.

Although if you get really successful you could find yourself like Adele thinking : 'after filling out my tax forms ,I felt like shooting someone'
Essentially the high tax rate for high earners.

*Some prisons have had to stop serving steak for fears that the bone could be converted onto a weapon, rather than the fact a lot of taxpayers can barely afford steak

I think all prisoners should be issued with a bill in a similar way to all English students get for going to Uni.

People who choose to go to Uni have to pay
People who commit crime don't have to pay financially , perversely they get a totally free ride at the expense of the law abiding

More spent on prisoner's food than on hospital patients or soldiers?! (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2464498/More-spent-on-food-for-prisoners-than-for-NHS-patients.html)

Also we have some people more or less getting away with murder, with low sentences...
So far the poll suggests the majority agree with me-to some extent!

(edited 11 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Dapperatchik

So the way to deal with criminals is to starve them, mistreat them and then pile them up with huge amounts of debt?

That sounds like a good way to punish criminals harshly, but the fact is that most crime is committed by men in their 20s - many who will have grown up a bit when they get out. You seem like you're doing everything you can to prevent these people from standing on their own two feet, which can only lead to more crime and reoffending.

We can't afford to lock everyone up, simple as.

Reply 2

LarrikinLibertine

Original post by a729

Though I think the best way of reducing crime is a mixture of horrible prison life and good rehabilitation

Err?

Reply 3

a729

Original post by Dapperatchik

So it's fair to load student's with debt?

I didn't say starve them- I said keep them alive!

Not all criminals are poor-think Huhne and his ex-wife for example

Reply 4

a729

Original post by LarrikinLibertine

Err?

what's the matter?

Make prison a place where no one wants to be

And to help them be law abiding citizens

Reply 5

Iron Lady

Original post by Dapperatchik

So the way to deal with criminals is to starve them, mistreat them and then pile them up with huge amounts of debt?

You're forgetting that to be in prison, they could have "mistreated" someone else.

Reply 6

Rooster523

'No one has to go hungry, no one has to sleep on the street, the welfare state will provide'

It seems you are out of touch with society sir.

Big difference between 'has to' and 'shouldn't have to'

Reply 7

LarrikinLibertine

Original post by a729

what's the matter?

Make prison a place where no one wants to be

And to help them be law abiding citizens

I don't see any ''good rehabilitation'' in what you just proposed. I just see a barbaric justice system that would totally alienate certain social groups from society. I see can the logic behind (most of) your argument, but it's been tried and tested and it doesn't work. Compare crime and re-offending rates in countries like Russia and the US with Nordic countries and other European countries. The evidence is clear, the more humane and rehabilitation focussed the system, the better results.

Oh and the debt idea is ludicrous, what better way to encourage ex-convicts to re-offend then loading them up with debt.

Reply 8

3 Phase Duck

I was speaking to prison officer the other day and asked him about all the 'treats' prisoners get and if he feels they should get them. He just outright said yes, one of the main reasons they are given things like pools tables and tvs is because when they are occupying their time with games, they aren't trying to kill each other. It makes life in prison for both them and the guards a lot easier.

Also stop taking propoganda from the daily mail at face value. In american jails prisoners get treated like animals compared to british jails but the level of violence and disobedience is far higher. It solves nothing, jail is bad, there are very few people with sound mind that want to be in jail even with their luxuries. Being put in their is the punishment, but they are also their to be rehabilitated. What use beating them and locking them in a dark room for 3 years only to release them after their sentence having learned nothing from the experience.

Reply 9

a729

Original post by LarrikinLibertine

If the debt was in applied in a similar way to student debt- where those woth means to pay -i.e Huhne- pay immediately and other pay small amounts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2464498/More-spent-on-food-for-prisoners-than-for-NHS-patients.html

Something is wrong when we spend more on prisoner food than food for soldiers or hospital patients

Reply 10

a729

Original post by 3 Phase Duck

Hmm some people say Switzerland's low crime rate is due to a heavily armed/disciplined population (http://libertycrier.com/world-news/why-switzerland-has-the-lowest-crime-rate-in-the-world/) rather than a too lefty approach to crime

The facts financially speak regardless of whether the Mail or the guardian says it.

If they were locked in their cells they would have less opportunity to attack each other

Reply 11

ZADS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/feb/25/norwegian-prison-inmates-treated-like-people?INTCMP=SRCH

Read this. It's a well-written article about a Norwegian prison which is so soft on its inmates that the average Daily Mail reader will vomit with rage. But it works - per captia, there are very few inmates in Norway, and reoffending rates are among the lowest in the world.

Reply 12

a729

Original post by Rooster523

'No one has to go hungry, no one has to sleep on the street, the welfare state will provide'

It seems you are out of touch with society sir.

Big difference between 'has to' and 'shouldn't have to'

I am not out of touch with society at all

Reply 13

3 Phase Duck

Original post by a729

The crime is less in switzerland because it has a higher standard of living and lower gap between rich and poor. It's nothing to do with their judicial system. The question here is whether treating prisoners like animals works, clearly from examples in russia, usa, south america, african nations that no it doesn't. If you want to tackle crime, you tackle poverty. If you want prisoners to stop offending you teach to live like normal human beings and give them the skills they need to provide for themself.

Reply 14

username775235

Poverty was probably worse in the 1940's WW2 times but we didn't have as much of a problem with crime. Culture has changed with the welfare state, why work like a pig when the state will look after you and your family. Which in turn bred the Chav culture and the system is abused. It should only be a temporary safety net unless you really can't work.

Also I do think we are too soft with criminal, I don't care if you committed a crime in your early 20's and will grow out of it. You can't change the fact that the crime has been committed and that is a fact that can't be reversed (More aimed murders and crimes that get life imprisonment, less at petty crimes.) You can be jailed for defending against a burglar... A lot of things in society are wrong but also out of your control.

Problem is, with all those human right acts. We can't be too tough on the criminal, they should be made to do free labour for the society. After all you've committed a crime and you're being punished for it. Being locked up with free food, healthcare, shelter and heating isn't really being punished.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 15

a729

Original post by 3 Phase Duck

In this country the 'poor' aren't really that poor in the global context.....

People should have principles and not break the law..regardless of financial position

Being poor is excuse for crime!
There's always someone less well of who is totally law abiding

It's easier to reform the judicial system than reduce the gap between rich and poor.....Socialism failed in the USSR...

Reply 16

a729

Original post by anthonyla65

thank you!

There is hope for this country! Not all people are super left-wing and soft on crime!

We could with some of the Castle laws they have in the US which protect home-owners who defend their property.
And the thing which scares US crooks the most...not the police but armed citizens!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 17

DayneD89

Original post by a729

in this country no one has to go hungry and no one has to sleep on the streets

Explain how I've been homeless 4 of the last 7 years then. Just saying, that safety net has a hell of a lot of holes in it.

Reply 18

MagicNMedicine

The British state is too weak.

If you are racist on Twitter you only get a few months in prison and you probably get a TV and access to learning materials and all that human rights crap too.

It should be 10 years in the labour camp, with no food or toilet breaks IMO.

Reply 19

So Instinct

"The research, commissioned by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation, found that young offenders 'are invariably poor, often destitute and . . . barely able to muster significant resources to subsist'.

After studying 1,389 young people on probation schemes, the researchers concluded that there was a 'real link between poverty and crime'.
'The message is clear. A significant group of people in our society, part of our investment in the future, are complete outsiders.' Almost two-thirds of the group were unemployed and only 10 per cent had an income of more than pounds 100 a week. Just one in five of the offenders had a job, compared with two in three of those interviewed for a similar study in the mid-1960s.

Seventy-two per cent were in poverty, according to measures used by the EC, and more than two-thirds of the 17-year-olds surveyed had 'no reliable source of income whatsoever'." - Source

There is a correlation between poverty and crime. Studies have established a link between poor living conditions, marked by poor public services, and the incidence of crime. Where there is acute poverty and poor living conditions, there tends to be high crime levels. As is shown by the source above.
However, correlation and causation are too different things, and to say that poverty breeds crime is to misrepresent the relationship.

Poverty must never be used as an excuse for crime. I have known many families who have lived in dire poverty, yet their offspring never succumbed to the temptation to steal. I know of many a parent, unable to provide the basic necessities of life, yet was able to bring up their children as law-abiding citizens. My single mother just about pays rent with my help yet I'm not out robbing people and being violent- in fact far from it.

Cambridge University studied around 700 young people in Peterborough for over a decade and discovered that most adolescent crime is not just youthful opportunism.
In fact, while it is agreed that urban environments trigger some young people to commit crime, it is their morality which is the biggest factor. Other teenagers remain highly resistant to committing crime - regardless of the circumstances.

"The Peterborough Adolescent and Young Adult Development Study was carried out by Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology.
And it found that rather than crime being widespread among teenagers, a tiny band of delinquents have each committed a staggering 278 crimes by the age of 16, say researchers.
The people, who make up less than 4 per cent of the teenage population, are responsible for nearly half of youth offending, they found.
The researchers studied 716 teenagers over five years from the age of 12 to 16 in Peterborough, which was chosen for its average size, crime level and social make-up.

Youngsters were asked about their attitudes to crime and what offences they had committed. The information was cross-checked with police and school records. The researchers found that 3.8 per cent of those surveyed had carried out 47 per cent of the 16,000 offences.
This group of 27 youths had committed 7,523 crimes in five years. The average youth racked up 278 offences between the ages of 12 and 16 – more than one a week.
They were responsible for the most serious property crimes such as burglaries, robberies and car theft, with many of them having criminal records before the age of 12."

What I would say is that some people while commit offences regardless of financial situations and most wont regardless of finance. However there is a moderately group in the middle who may not initially contemplate crime but however still have it within them and are essentially 'pushed off the edge' so to speak by financial situations.

Though I would say how often where you picked on and had money stolen from you from kids who were usually nice? Extremely rare.
I think if you were to break it down to individual crimes logic would suggest people stealing for supermarkets are more likely to be effected by financial restraints and may actually otherwise not have done it. But then you come across cases such as Assault where more likely than not finance doesn't come into it and had the person been brought up different he may not have done it.