Excessive sentences?

[AndyHB]

What do folk think of the 'national service' idea that is being bandied around by some?  Not military, but involving some sort of productive activity.  At the same time, some believe that community service and even a modernised 'national service' is getting stuff done for nothing.  I'd disagree with the suggestion that community service workers ought to be being paid (they are repaying a debt, after all), but would have thought that NS ought to be remunerative work.

[Jan]

If it helps people to become more 'community aware', and to think of others then I guess that is a good thing.

[ecuworrier]

do you mean like in 'Castaway' ??   

what I was suggesting ecu was that instead of a custodial sentence, in some cases doing proper community work would be better - and not as a soft option, but to actually get them to work and also to realize what it means to be part of a community. Apparently around two thirds of people on short sentences re-offend again within one year. With younger people, it's three quarters - so obviously prison, as it is, isn't really serving as a deterrent is it?

i'm not sure one can draw too many conclusions from that data... which excludes the basis for decision making on the part of the judges what did the sentencing with the folks standing in front of them... i have no idea what re-offendfing rates are for non custodial sentencing and whether community service.... well what is that... my limited experience of that is anecdote about some cleaning up of communal scrubland round a council residential block....  it occured to me that the residents might have benefited in more ways than one to have done the gardening themselves ... but oh no that job was marked out for community service end of! what became of the servers of those punishments i have no idea but being paternalist towards the residents was hardly enhancing their own sense of community within the block or with the wider community...

if cs is visible then i guess it serves similar  purpose to the good old stocks or the chain gangs of old... does it right wrongs? dunno does it change the opportunities for the recipients of those sentences dunno... anything more complex tjhan the chain gang model which presumably is cheaper than incarceration requires funds and people resources and well thought out plans this is investment potentially but in who's hands? and who is gonna pay? and who is gonna think through or follow through ... i feels we is on a bit of a no-brainer here...


ah the national service idea..... isn't that like 'gap year'

would it do the same thing as ns ie get folks to do enforced training and 'work' for a fixed period against their will and hearts desires but give some of them a sense of discipline... who is gonna organise that one oh and for girls too....  if you do it via the army then it is clear cut the infrastructure c an be tweaked to cope ... to do it in a purely community setting adds complexity i mean how many library volunteers does one library need and so on... and who is gonna pay but who is gonna

are we gonna end up with rich poor divide with those who can afford to send their loved ones abroad to gap years as they are now while no-one wants to take care of disaffected yourth ... the options are limited... ns (in its extended forms ie not everyone is suitable to train as soldiers health wise or moral reasoning) works best when folks already have a sense of involvement in the general er society as nation

i think if we are all in this together then our whole society could (i say 'could' cos folks is folks and nobody has really addressed that issue in a cultural or a political sense in this country )
benefit from community service for 2 years starting with the politicians... preferably the most ghastly environments that britain can throw up for them



GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[tranchiebabe]

Crap.

Attitudes like that are fueling disorder in this country!

Sadly JJ Ihave no respect for you as Admin, and therefore will cancel my membership of this forum.

[Martin]

Attitudes like that are fueling disorder in this country!

I think I would rather live in a society where people considered others because they cared about others, rather than because they were cowed with the fear of being hit by others. 

Anybody who has studied crime, or child-rearing, will tell you that hitting people is not the answer, but I expect the Daily Mail readers will beg to differ without any serious study themselves.

[JJ]

Crap.

Attitudes like that are fueling disorder in this country!

Sadly JJ Ihave no respect for you as Admin, and therefore will cancel my membership of this forum.

Oh dear, can't swallow one's own medicine then.

[Jan]

Crap.

Attitudes like that are fueling disorder in this country!

Sadly JJ Ihave no respect for you as Admin, and therefore will cancel my membership of this forum.

???

[Jan]

Attitudes like that are fueling disorder in this country!

I think I would rather live in a society where people considered others because they cared about others, rather than because they were cowed with the fear of being hit by others. 

I think so too Martin - though probably like a fair percentage in my generation and generations before, I was smacked for being naughty. I don't think it did me any harm (I'm a fairly 'well adjusted' lass now    ) - but it doesn't really mean it was the right thing to do. Its now seen as a form of bullying or abuse, but back then it was getting your 'Comeuppance' for doing something wrong. Different times though eh....

[EliB]

With regards the sentencing...I DID think it was (almost) laughable to hear Hazel Blears rant about the rioters when she got away with THEFT and FRAUD! But whilst the sentences for these youths who were inciting violence (which came to nothing!) deserve some punishment, I see no benefit to locking them up - and those actually rioting deserve the 4 years imprisonment - but I DO agree that the sentencing as a whole HAS been far too soft for years - but it's also been totally inconsistent, which is why you see this 4 year tarrif for these youths whilst rapists (if convicted at all!!!!) can get 18 months! There has to be some consistency regarding REALISTIC sentences, NO MATTER WHO the perpetrator is: what public office they hold; how famous or rich they are; or how poor they are!! There should be a sentence affixed to each crime (or level of ie. in the US Murder 1, **** 2 etc!!) and that is IT!!! NO leniency depending on how influencial you might be or how many 0s are on your bank balance!
As for smacking children (and I mean a short, sharp smack on the backside, NOT a doing!!!!One equals discipline, the other, abuse!) I have no problem with that! My sister and I were both smacked - but it was always after several ignored warnings and mostly (in my case) a lot of cheek (I WAS a joy of a child!!) and any time we WERE smacked, we knew full well that we deserved it! Whilst visiting a friend last week she smacked one of her 8 year old sons after several warnings..one smack on his backside....don't see the problem....!!!

[JJ]

Well I wouldn't like to be smacked myself.  And I wouldn't do it to a child whose understanding is even less than mine.  Anyway..........that's another subject, smacking. 

My surprise is that floopowder is so sensitive.  Really sorry that she is so upset, shame that she feels like she has to leave.  I invite her to respect her-self and dialogue without using the word scum regarding people she hardly knows.  I'm very happy to do that.

And who cares about the bloody admin.

[Martin]

probably like a fair percentage in my generation and generations before, I was smacked for being naughty. I don't think it did me any harm (I'm a fairly 'well adjusted' lass now    ) - but it doesn't really mean it was the right thing to do. Its now seen as a form of bullying or abuse, but back then it was getting your 'Comeuppance' for doing something wrong. Different times though eh....

I wouldn't class every occasion of every parent smacking a child as abuse, but I think there are almost always better ways of getting children to behave well.  We are imperfect beings and we can't always find the perfect way.  But what I would say is that, in many cases, parents who smack children are really underlining the concept of might is right.  I'm not a fan of smacking as a meams of punishment, or even the use of phrases like 'because I say so' but I have to admit that I have done both on the odd occasion. 

[EliB]

Well I wouldn't like to be smacked myself.  And I wouldn't do it to a child whose understanding is even less than mine.  Anyway..........that's another subject, smacking. 

Already tried posting this but it didn't work....
JJ, I know that 'smacking' is another issue, but my point was that we DID understand why we were being smacked - and so did my friend's boy!

My surprise is that floopowder is so sensitive.  Really sorry that she is so upset, shame that she feels like she has to leave.  I invite her to respect her-self and dialogue without using the word scum regarding people she hardly knows.  I'm very happy to do that.

And who cares about the bloody admin.

I'm curious JJ as to why you think it's wrong to refer to the rioters as "scum", because that's exactly what they were - wanton violence and destruction of property....what else would you call them?  Decent, law-abiding people don't behave in that way!

[JJ]

Because it diminishes me to use such epithets for people.  Might as well call them nigga scum a lot of them or white trash or bastards - says nothing about them but a lot about me.  Who are we to be so lofty as to call other people names? They are human beings - people like me, people unlike me, but still people.  Respec' !!

[EliB]

Because it diminishes me to use such epithets for people.  Might as well call them nigga scum a lot of them or white trash or bastards - says nothing about them but a lot about me.  Who are we to be so lofty as to call other people names? They are human beings - people like me, people unlike me, but still people.  Respec' !!

I'd say it might bring us down to their level to use such terms, but that's not what you mean! You mean ( I think!) that we shouldn't be so judgemental as to use such terms for other human beings. My argument to that would be that these people weren't ACTING like 'human beings' and thankfully they're definitely UNlike me! I wouldn't bring race into it because 1) I don't care WHAT race folk are and 2) these riots were nothing to do with race! All ethnicities were rioting! Respect is something that's earned - not a given just by being part of the human race!!

[JJ]

What I mean is what I say: It does diminish me to use terms of abuse for others.  End of.  Abuse is abuse whether it's done by a righteous person or a bad person. Isn't it? Name calling reflects on the speaker not the criminal - and keeps the bitterness and bad feeling alive in the heart of the speaker and of what use is that?  It's the message of the Gospel to look at our own hearts isn't it?     It doesn't in any way condone criminal and offensive behaviour but it at least clears the decks towards a way of thinking about how to deal with the threat or aftermath of violence or crime with a level head.

It's not good to hear you say that what I really mean is something other than I say.  That doesn't make sense to me.  I say what I say in good faith.   I don't say one thing and mean another, I really don't.  In any case, as you say yourself, that you think what I really mean is that we shouldn't be so judgemental, that in a way follows directly from the first part of the above.  The reason for not being judgemental is that it prevents us from seeing the situation critically. It brings in emotional reasoning.  Judgmentalism clouds the issue.  It gets us nowhere. 

"These people" were acting like human beings, by definition, because they are human beings.  Human beings behave in all sorts of ways for various reasons.  So it seems about time to accept this and see how it can be dealt with for the benefit of society, all of society, not just the people who have the brains and education and good fortune to be self aware and self reliant.