|
|
Post by HStorm on Feb 8, 2005 17:27:28 GMT
The old "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" cliche is an ever-present in General Election years, and inevitably it is again this time around.
Michael Howard has announced tougher, harsher sentences for repeat offenders once again, but has termed it in a slightly unsettling way. The 'big-sell' will be a traditional three-strikes-you're-out policy for burglars i.e. three or more convictions for burglary equal a compulsory jail term. His boast was that his ideas would see another 14,000 offenders put behind bars.
While most people would agree that punishment for criminals is a good thing, in the above terms Howard appears to be promoting the idea of bigger prison populations as an end in itself. With Britain already having one of the biggest, most overcrowded and most expensive prison populations on the face of the Earth, this "I'm-going-to-give-the-country-more-convicts-than-ever" stance could be seen as yet another fantastic bullet in his own foot.
Lib-Dem Mark Oaten responded that a REALLY tough policy would be to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Feb 9, 2005 14:08:29 GMT
This smacks of the logic used by Stalin's secret police. You have to find 30 criminals a months to send to the Gulags, even if there aren't 30 people living in your local farmstead (this actually happened in some places in Russia. The whole population of some towns were arrested just to fill up quotas, and when the next month the local KGB office couldn't find any one to arrest, the police themselves were shipped off). Our crime initative MUST be working, look how many people we've arrested! 14000 MORE people for the taxpayer to support! But don't worry about the cost, we'll just privatise a few more industries (pensions, healthcare) and whack out a few more unusual taxes (breathing tax, foot tax, birth tax with cumulative interest until the age of 16) and everyone's happy!
Bravo, Howard, bravo. You've proven in one fell swoop that you have the intellect of a stunned duck and the charisma of a slug with elephantitis of the testicles.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Mar 15, 2005 18:30:41 GMT
Intellegent, realist politicians have always been in a minority.
|
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Mar 15, 2005 19:41:32 GMT
And it seems they always will be, the trend never changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 13, 2005 18:29:45 GMT
The problem of overcrowded prisons in Britain is getting increasingly serious. There are 25,000 more people in jail now in England and Wales than there were in 1995. Scotland's prison population has also swelled alarmingly, and now stands at about 7,000.
The main reason for this does not appear to be a proportionate rise in crime, but magistrates and judges sending more people to prison, and for longer sentences.
The upshot is that inmates are stuck in their cells for 23 hours a day, and some prisoners even have to spend nights on end in police stations while they wait for prison space to become available.
Surely the time has come to find alternatives to prison sentences for some crimes, or to accept that we have to have more prisons, and therefore have to fit larger judiciary bills in future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 13, 2005 21:03:01 GMT
It just goes to show that the sensible option is a Zero Crime bill. Victimless crimes, such as drug dealing, prostitution etc, would cease to be criminal offences and as such could be taxed, resulting in an increeased police and healthcare budget for a decreased policing workload. Can anyone seriously give me a good reason this wouldn't work? And by serious, I discount Thanatos' usual idea of 'people shouldn't have the right to cause themselves damage', and also Critique's idea that drug-related crime would soar. Around 75% of drug-related crime is dealing, which wouldn't be illegal under this system. In fact, it would simply provide the police and health service with MORE money.
Now, the health service would have to open up a large-scale rehab program, admittedly, but that could be covered with the large amount of tax generated. Cigarettes, as already noted elsewhere, provide around 500% more money to the NHS than is spent curing the diseases it causes. On the other hand, heroin provides approximately 0% of the funds needed to help those addicted to it. See a disparity?
And the police direly need the fund this would generate, and also the considerable reduction on their workload. It's bloody difficult trying to catch drug dealers, because the 'victims' don't want the dealer caught any more than the criminal (or successful freelance pharmacutical distributor, should I say). The only possible danger is the increased exposure of children to drugs; but if you ask me they're more likely to avoid harmful drugs if they know more about them. Most school drugs awareness programs amount to 'Drugs are bad, don't do them', which I feel is not entirely satisfactory. Better to examine the drugs and their effects fully rather than rely on the same old tawdry spiel that leave 80% of the class desperate to find out what all the fuss is about.
So come on then. Give me your reasoning why this won't work, or at least won't work as well as sending everyone convicted of anything to prison.
|
|
holster5
Constituency Candidate
Posts: 4
|
Post by holster5 on Mar 8, 2006 13:12:13 GMT
It just goes to show that the sensible option is a Zero Crime bill. Victimless crimes, such as drug dealing, prostitution etc . Excuse me? drug dealing is victimless? The vast majority of drug dealers couldn't care less about the wellbeing of their 'customers'. Indirectly, drug dealing causes the majority of shoplifting and other theft related crimes, overdoses and poisonings, and many violent criminal offences. Go ahead.. reduce their risk of imprisonment... set them free to increase all related crime, and subsequently the prison populations. Around 75% of drug-related crime is dealing Where did u dream this up? As above, most drug-related crime is in fact indirect. There is a massive discrepancy between estimated rates of drug dealing and convictions for it. Have u been reading the Sun again? |
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 8, 2006 14:26:10 GMT
Hmm, reading the Sun, you say? Interesting interpretation. What Nas is suggesting is manifestly a centre-left policy, whereas the Sun is a right-wing, even Thatcherite, newspaper; one that is opposed to any form of illegal drug-use. This is a matter on which its mind is firmly closed. How Naselus could have 'dreamt' the policy up via reading the Sun is unclear to me. He never reads it anyway, to the best of my knowledge, but whatever the case, it's a bizarre assumption that you're making.
I recommend you re-read what Naselus said, holster5, as from your words it sounds like you're not quite following it.
Welcome to the forum by the way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 8, 2006 16:53:28 GMT
Excuse me? drug dealing is victimless? The vast majority of drug dealers couldn't care less about the wellbeing of their 'customers'. Indirectly, drug dealing causes the majority of shoplifting and other theft related crimes, overdoses and poisonings, and many violent criminal offences. Go ahead.. reduce their risk of imprisonment... set them free to increase all related crime, and subsequently the prison populations. The vast majority of shop assistants don't care about the wellbeing of their customers either. Indirect effects are irrevelant in the decision as to whether a crime has a victim or not. Provided the 'victim' isn't FORCED to buy anything, it's effectively not even a crime; it's a transaction. An untaxed transaction. Current legal practice doesn't work. There's thousands of heroin addicts being treated on the NHS in this country, and no tax was ever collected by the state on any of the drug in the first place. Hence, you've got an unavoidable drain on rehabilitation, which has no revenue-generating apparatus to support it. Legalise trading in the substances in question, and you'll instantly gain huge tax dividends (cigarettes turn a 500% profit in tax terms. Imagine how much cannabis alone could bring in?), the quality of the drugs would improve (and you well know that it's the poor quality of street heroin that makes it so dangerous, not the drug itself), drug dealers would cease shooting at each other and would instead from unions... Sure, there's some bad points. But the extra funding provided would allow vastly improved services to cater for such things. The NHS would gain enough money to open a new rehab clinic every week. Methadone could be available in vast quantities. The police would have extra funding and a reduced workload, so ancillary crime could be kept under control, with people stealing to feed an addiction turned over to the new NHS rehab schemes. I've thought this through, and I can't see any major problems. "Around 75% of drug-related crime is dealing" Where did u dream this up? As above, most drug-related crime is in fact indirect. There is a massive discrepancy between estimated rates of drug dealing and convictions for it. Have u been reading the Sun again? Once again, you're lumping indirect effects in where they don't belong. Shoplifting isn't handled by the Drug Squad. (EDIT by HStorm: Corrected errors with quote markers.) |
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 8, 2006 17:19:23 GMT
To add to all that, if drugs were legalised and regulated, it would reduce the crime involved in it. One of the major reasons why drug-related crime is so high is that heavy narcotics are difficult to get hold of. This means the dealers can charge extortionate prices for it, knowing that addicts will be so desparate for a fix that they'll still pay top dollar. And if the addict can't afford it, they'll commit crimes to find the cash.
Whereas, if the trade was regulated, production and import would become far higher, and the resulting easy availability would bring prices down. Governments could even impose price limits. Overall, crimes to feed the habit would become unnecessary in a lot of cases.
|
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Mar 9, 2006 2:57:59 GMT
There are many flaws to the three strikes law, not least that it removes disincentive to commit crime. Anyway, since when has anyone actually been deterred from committing a crime because of the possible consequences? Obviously not that many, or our prisons wouldn't be as overcrowded as they are!
Howards proposal is designed to help no one but himself, his party, and those companies who will land contracts for the so-called Public-Private-Partnership built prisons. Detention is big business, and it can do Howard and the Tories no harm to maintain good relations with the fat cats who stand to profit.
Moving onto the drug issue, which this thread is fast becoming about, I must say that I agree wholeheartedly with Naselus and HStorm's sentiments. Firstly, we have to differentiate between drugs. A blanket label is frankly lazy, and this lack of distinction is what has led to there being such a problem.
We need a program of decriminalisation, regulation and education. Rather than a war on drugs, we need a war on ignorance about drugs. Heroin addicts should be treated as addicts rather than criminals. Where is the benefit in locking up a smackhead in an overcrowded jail cell with little or no provision for his/her rehabilitation?
Smarter sentencing guidelines can be implemented relatively quickly. Drug users should not be in jail. By legalising and regulating the manufacture and supply of drugs that are currently illegal, you remove the black market and provide the mechanisms for re-education, drug treatment centres, public awareness campaigns and the like.
|
|
holster5
Constituency Candidate
Posts: 4
|
Post by holster5 on Mar 9, 2006 11:00:10 GMT
Hmm, reading the Sun, you say? Interesting interpretation. Thank you so much for your patronising comments HStorm. I am well aware of the political standpoint of the Sun, and of Naselus' comments. If you "interpreted" my comments with less contempt and actually read the content, you'd realise that I wasn't attacking the general political stance, just the details. I wasn't "interpreting" Naselus' comments as having come from him reading the Sun! It was merely a joke comment [go on, reply with some more insignificant comments about mentioning the Sun as a joke... yawn] with a serious point, that stats and figures should be substantiated. |
|
holster5
Constituency Candidate
Posts: 4
|
Post by holster5 on Mar 9, 2006 11:15:43 GMT
Once again, you're lumping indirect effects in where they don't belong. Shoplifting isn't handled by the Drug Squad. Ok, yes they are indirect, but significant none the less. The different sections of the police have nothing to do with the overcrowdedness of prisons. I agree with your general reasoning but you cannot ignore these knock on effects into other areas of crime and policing. I would advocate the legalisation of heroin. It could bring all the benefits touched upon by Naselus, without considering drug dealing as a victimless crime. Consider just how dangerous heroin is. It's near impossible to distinguish between the effects of the attitudes and beliefs about the drug, from its inherent properties. Illegality of heroin keeps the prices high, which encourages theft and robbery. Also, there is no safety or legal cover to protect users against receiving substandard goods, which sustains high levels of poisoning and overdose, as well as violence rates. Independent health problems include needle sharing, unsterile environments etc Associated predictors of heroin use include drug dependence, arrests, anti-social behaviour and unemployment. It has been suggested that these predictors are in fact responsible for the poor outcomes of heroin use, and not the qualities of heroin itself. |
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 9, 2006 12:45:52 GMT
Thank you so much for your patronising comments HStorm Holster, it's not 'patronising' for someone to point out to you that there's a flaw in your reasoning about something. In response to the rather terse tone of your first post, I was actually making an effort to be polite. Something patronising would go along the lines of, "Nas doesn't read the tabloids, you silly mare! You don't know what you're talking about!" On the subject of being patronising, I should point out that saying, "Where did u dream this up?" sounds pretty condescending and dismissive as well. I wasn't interpreting them with contempt, I was simply pointing out a weakness in your apparent reasoning. It's quite possible to notice a flaw in something without developing a contempt for it. So why did you make the comment in a way that so strongly implied that he had? How else are people supposed to interpret it? Fine, but there was no indication whatsoever of that in the way you wrote it. Even a smilie or putting "private joke" in brackets would've done. As it stands, your comment didn't make sense. Sorry for the misunderstanding, but it would help if you tried to make your meaning a little clearer, instead of leaping down my throat. |
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Mar 9, 2006 14:06:09 GMT
Tp be honest, Storm, I thought the Sun comment was a joke anyway.
But back to the issue....
Drug dealing is in itself victimless. To blame the drug dealer wholeheartedly for the actions of the customer is a total fallacy. Think of the 'hidden' heroin addicts, who hold down a full-time job while maintaining a habit. Is the drug dealer to be commended in those cases as a champion of industry? Should he recieve the credit for his customer having a job? No, he bloody well shouldn't. And nor should he be blamed for people who turn to crime to feed their habit.
|
|
holster5
Constituency Candidate
Posts: 4
|
Post by holster5 on Mar 9, 2006 17:17:23 GMT
Storm, I think we may have got off on the wrong foot, but I am not used to the tone people use in their personal replies to people's comments. So sorry you misinterpreted my original message (in which there was no flaw in reasoning, just a misunderstanding on both parts) and I'm sorry you felt I was 'jumping down your throat', but it was in retaliation for what I believed WAS a patronising reply.
Nevertheless, I would ask you not to use any other name to address me other than my username. It is completely inappropriate, and a violation of my privacy, to reveal anything about my identity without my prior consent.
|
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Mar 9, 2006 17:26:21 GMT
Okay, I apologise. I've altered the post to hide your real first name.
|
|
