MooseBreath Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Oh no nick! We were all so desperate to hear from your, your holy cleverness! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEEASE RECONSIDER, I WANT YOU TO BRING ME TO INTELLECTUAL CLIMAX!
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Oh no nick! We were all so desperate to hear from your, your holy cleverness! PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEEEEEEEASE RECONSIDER, I WANT YOU TO BRING ME TO INTELLECTUAL CLIMAX! No you don't - you said last Friday you didn't want to read one of my posts due to it being a bit long. So be content with the executive summary above. I'm not sure if you'll get to this third line but if you have congratulations - in most cases people love a trier. Sadly this isn't one of them.
Guest Col city fan Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 In this space used to be a critical review of desistance theories. Then I remembered this is Foxestalk and thought 'what's the point?' Because even if people can be arsed to read it, they'll still just say 'let's throw away the key' and any change in life opportunities and social efficacy is left wing liberal clap trap. So I'm not going to bother. Let's agree to spend money blindly on young people at risk of or committing crime and execute the older ones as there is seemingly no point in helping lost causes... After all, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. Eh Col. Marbella Dave I'd love to hear more about people being beyond hope by the age of 19 - sounds like you've really thought about this one. Don't you think that public resources need to be rationed then Nick cos this is really the essence of this debate? There is a pot of money and God knows how many causes to spend it on. Would you, for example, try to rehabilitate this kid (and thousands of other similar ones) whilst closing down a neo-natal unit or a Mental Health Ward? How about helping this lad whilst shutting down Connexions or The Drug and Alcohol centre in the City. There are thousands of examples of rationing, delivered every day to public services and and it is a zero-sum game I'm afraid. Some will benefit whilst others lose out. So why not back down a little from your humanitarian stance and look at the reality of the situation? This kid, given the above, looks like pretty much a lost cause. It may be better, more effective and more realistic to target resources at the causes if youth crime, rather than on expensive rehabilitation programmes for a select few? Harsh reality, but my opinion in this case. Or, are you willing to pay extra taxes for everyone to get everything? If so, if you can truly hold your hand up and say yes to this then fair enough. Finally, no irony here mate. I'll leave that in your capable hands.
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 The problem here is that you don't know anything about this individual or his criminogenic needs. Attempting to make a rational structured argument regarding cost of intervening and addressing the causes of his criminality is laughable if you consider how much it will cost the taxpayer to imprison him for the next 5 years, only to let him out to do more of the same without addressing the root causes of his criminal behaviour.
MooseBreath Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 The left wing typically believe that all good causes should receive maximum funding, while taxes should always be reduced. They have no concept of opportunity cost whatsoever.
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 The left wing typically believe that all good causes should receive maximum funding, while taxes should always be reduced. They have no concept of opportunity cost whatsoever. Nothing really to say again then, just more of the same speculative, subjective, prejudicial, unfounded, sweeping crap. Great.
MooseBreath Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Nothing really to say again then, just more of the same speculative, subjective, prejudicial, unfounded, sweeping crap. Great. This week its rehabilitation, next week you'll have forgotten about this and moved onto whatever is next's weeks buzz-issue in your tree hugging ponce rag.
Captain... Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Don't you think that public resources need to be rationed then Nick cos this is really the essence of this debate? There is a pot of money and God knows how many causes to spend it on. Would you, for example, try to rehabilitate this kid (and thousands of other similar ones) whilst closing down a neo-natal unit or a Mental Health Ward? How about helping this lad whilst shutting down Connexions or The Drug and Alcohol centre in the City. There are thousands of examples of rationing, delivered every day to public services and and it is a zero-sum game I'm afraid. Some will benefit whilst others lose out. So why not back down a little from your humanitarian stance and look at the reality of the situation? This kid, given the above, looks like pretty much a lost cause. It may be better, more effective and more realistic to target resources at the causes if youth crime, rather than on expensive rehabilitation programmes for a select few? Harsh reality, but my opinion in this case. Or, are you willing to pay extra taxes for everyone to get everything? If so, if you can truly hold your hand up and say yes to this then fair enough. Finally, no irony here mate. I'll leave that in your capable hands. No Col, the debate here is that you have written this kid off, and think he should be locked up and have the key thrown away, you mentioned nothing of distribution of limited resources when you said that, especially considering that keeping him incarcerated for lets say 50 years, average life expectancy, would be much more of a drain on the limited government funds you are so concerned about, than 2-4 years inside and then released back in to society to pay his way, earn money and contribute to the economy. Unless you meant kill him, instead of lock him up and throw away the key. What has happened here is that you realised you were wrong, an you were being a reactionary, and now want to change the debate to one you think will make paint you in a better light. At least have the courage of your convictions Col.
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 It's the Col City way, when a question gets difficult or the argument runs into a brick wall, swerve and change the subject. If you say enough things enough times in many places threads and different ways at some point you'll be able to point where you were right.
Captain... Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 The left wing typically believe that all good causes should receive maximum funding, while taxes should always be reduced. They have no concept of opportunity cost whatsoever. Nope, the left want to raise taxes on the rich, and cut taxes to the poor, but overall they want more taxes.
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 This week its rehabilitation, next week you'll have forgotten about this and moved onto whatever is next's weeks buzz-issue in your tree hugging ponce rag. 15 years working in various roles in the Criminal Justice System would suggest you again, don't know what you are talking about.
Zingari Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Does anyone think there may be just such a thing as a criminal mind and that some people will be criminals (whether caught or uncaught) regardless of whatever treatment etc is given to them? There is no shortage of crooks in the wealthier classes who don’t need the money nor do they need stimulation nor understanding nor therapy , they just want more more more and have no complex about taking it by whatever foul means . They are usually just less likely to be caught and are regarded as pillars of society until or if they are caught and then someone will diagnose them as having some psychological sounding disorder .
Captain... Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Does anyone think there may be just such a thing as a criminal mind and that some people will be criminals (whether caught or uncaught) regardless of whatever treatment etc is given to them? There is no shortage of crooks in the wealthier classes who don’t need the money nor do they need stimulation nor understanding nor therapy , they just want more more more and have no complex about taking it by whatever foul means . They are usually just less likely to be caught and are regarded as pillars of society until or if they are caught and then someone will diagnose them as having some psychological sounding disorder . It is possible and is exhibited to some extent in psychopathic behaviour, but not all psychopaths engage in criminal activity and are often characterised as thrill seekers and these could be the ones you talk about who commit crimes because of the thrill and danger involved, and those that you mention who are consumed by greed and desire suffer a different disorder, as was reported on here not that long ago, the increase in middle class shop lifting of high end products, this is greed but not born out of a criminal mind but from societal pressures. These people are much harder to rehabilitate than those that have ended up in a life of crime through, desperation, either money or drugs or whatever, some people commit crimes because they need to, but some people have a compulsive need to commit crimes.
marbelladave Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Marbella Dave I'd love to hear more about people being beyond hope by the age of 19 - sounds like you've really thought about this one. Sadly I have thought this through. I am well aware that there are techniques that can be used to re educate and rehabilitate offenders but for a variety of reasons (social and political) they are rarely used. I do not like this situation one bit, but I do acknowledge that it is the reality at this time. In this world our 19 year old is most likely beyond help, comprehensive rehabilitation is probably not going to available and short term prison sentences only make things worse. Sadly this leaves long term incarceration as the likely alternative. Hateful though that might be it is preferable (to me at least) to the only likely alternative.
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 I'm not sure what any of the above is based on. Does this mean that anybody who works with offenders over the age of 19 is wasting their time?
Webbo Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 I'm not sure what any of the above is based on. Does this mean that anybody who works with offenders over the age of 19 is wasting their time? Tbf they haven't got a great track record of success.
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Who hasn't ? And with what types or group of offending behaviours? With access to what resources?
Rincewind Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 I was with somebody today that has worked with young offenders. I showed her this thread and she liked Nicks posts. She said it was rubbish to say that at age 19 you should give up with them. I also know someone that work with the prison service with rehabitation. He visits prisons parole officers and has the backing of governors and high officials with the work and his colleagues do. They work within the system so know what they are talking about and know what works and what doesn't. If you wish to argue against it and have valid and constructive opinions the Inside N Out web site and magazine welcomes feedback. They welcome opinions and suggestions on how they could do things better from anyone with greater knowledge and expertise of the subject. Any takers?
Webbo Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 Who hasn't ? anybody who works with offenders over the age of 19 And with what types or group of offending behaviours? offenders over the age of 19 I was replying to your post I don't know how you wouldn't know who I was talking about.
JF7 Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 It would be nice if this guy managed to turn his life around, but after 7 years of criminal activity through such an important part of life, it seems improbable...
marbelladave Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 There is no doubt, as Nick points out, that some young offenders can change their lives around. As he says, some low level offenders simply grow out of it, others make huge efforts to make the change and live decent honest lives. It also makes sense to re-habilitate rather than incarcerate, it's cheaper for a start buy as I pointed out earlier, this is socially and politically difficult for the authorities. On the other hand some do not, their formative years are exactly that and their behaviour pattens and criminal behaviour is set, pretty much for life. Ordinary people, have to live with the consequences of this, and all to often they are the ones forgotten ignored and unsupported.
Nick Posted 2 October 2012 Posted 2 October 2012 I was replying to your post I don't know how you wouldn't know who I was talking about. It's a tad more complicated than that, hence asking for the specifics - don't let the detail get in the way of a good stone throwing exercise.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.