Thursday, November 30, 2006
More on crime and violence
John ap Rhys Pryce the father of murdered lawyer Tom, has an opinion piece in The Times here. Now clearly it gives me no pleasure in attacking an article written by someone who has been through this type of event, but ultimately he chooses to write publicly and I'd be failing myself if I allow some of his assertions to go unchallenged.
Once he gets to the main thrust of his piece, we start to apportion the blame: "The first, and perhaps most obvious, point to note is that if the pair had not been carrying knives, not only would Tom have been spared, but their own lives would not have been ruined."
NO! NO! NO! The knife is inane, it doesn't work on it's own, it isn't evil. The knife in this case was carried and wielded by someone who chose freely to do so. You can say "had this pair not decided to rob", you can say "had they not decided to rob using arms". The pair didn't just happen to be "carrying knives"; they were engaged in a criminal enterprise and chose to arm themselves to better carry it out. The only comment you can make, in my view, is to say: "Had the state not removed the right for my son to be armed then maybe he'd have been able to better fight back; and instead of him being dead perhaps these two robbers would be."
Next up it's the turn of music, films videos, and computer games. I've no doubt some of these do glorify violence, but so do some books, and these are missing from his list. He goes on to refer to a game from Sony, which I'm unfamiliar with, but must say it sounds rather distasteful. It's easy to point to these things (although always excluding books) and shout: "Correlation! Correlation!" This fails to notice one or two important factors, mankind has been violent long before music, films, videos, computer games and even books. If violence was not part of our inherent makeup we would never have survived as a species. If we succeeded in eradicating violence totally from our being, how long would we continue to survive? Not too long in evolutionary terms I imagine.
He moves on quoting approvingly from the song Gee Officer Krupkee from West Side Story: "“We never had the love that ev’ry child oughta get./ We ain’t no delinquents,/ We’re misunderstood./ Deep down inside us there is good!”". There might be an element of this in some cases, but it doesn't account for the criminality of those where this doesn't apply. Also even if this element exists, it's no excuse for crime; each person has to make their own decisions and live with them. A poor childhood is no excuse for murder.
Talking of gang members he says: "What we do know is that they seem to want to celebrate their unique identity and independence from normal society." This to me is I think plain wrong, if they wanted to be as independent as he suggests they'd maybe emigrate, or alternatively attempt to form their own states. I think he's confusing a desire to be an individual and individualistic with total independence; it may be speakcrime (in a socialist society) to say it, but there are many people who wish and try to be individualistic; they seem to manage it without murder. It's only a crime to be an individual in a socialist type society.
He continues: "In London they use Jamaican patois and make up slang that only their friends can understand; they gain street cred from wearing the latest designer clothes and having the most technically hot mobile phones; and they rap about their exploits." I say there's nothing wrong with any of that (it's behaviour I'm unlikely to indulge in, but neither will I condemn it); if those exploits consist of crimes then that's another matter, but none of those other things present, or are even symptoms of any problem.
He moves on and refers to education, which I'll come back to, but then attacks the "instant society" adding: "And when the results don’t come — as is inevitable — they get angry." For me this is just another excuse; we're all subject to these pressures, by now there'd be total anarchy if there was any substance to this assertion.
Going back to education, and he quite correctly defines this in terms of complete bringing up, I think he makes some valid points, but he fails to get down to the essentials of violence. I return to what I said earlier, violence is a natural part of our makeup, and as we're all individuals, some people will be more violent than others. The challenge and where we have failed, is to accept that violence is part of us and to teach people to channel it correctly.
I quote: "What is it about boys — it is usually boys — that makes them reject all well-meaning offers? They want to be their own man, to do their own thing. Perhaps they have been excluded from school, or have a grudge against organisations, or they simply think it is not “cool” to be helped." Firstly it would seem to apply to increasing numbers of girls too, but maybe the "well-meaning offer" simply isn't attractive to the people it's aimed at. Violence is no longer judged on its merits, there is an assumption that all violence is bad, whereas only wrongful violence should be looked on as bad. Even legal sports with an element of violence (such as boxing) are criticised for being violent. If we're going to ostracise people simply for violence without distinguishing between good and bad, then I don't think we can be too surprised when we are visited with the bad.
Once he gets to the main thrust of his piece, we start to apportion the blame: "The first, and perhaps most obvious, point to note is that if the pair had not been carrying knives, not only would Tom have been spared, but their own lives would not have been ruined."
NO! NO! NO! The knife is inane, it doesn't work on it's own, it isn't evil. The knife in this case was carried and wielded by someone who chose freely to do so. You can say "had this pair not decided to rob", you can say "had they not decided to rob using arms". The pair didn't just happen to be "carrying knives"; they were engaged in a criminal enterprise and chose to arm themselves to better carry it out. The only comment you can make, in my view, is to say: "Had the state not removed the right for my son to be armed then maybe he'd have been able to better fight back; and instead of him being dead perhaps these two robbers would be."
Next up it's the turn of music, films videos, and computer games. I've no doubt some of these do glorify violence, but so do some books, and these are missing from his list. He goes on to refer to a game from Sony, which I'm unfamiliar with, but must say it sounds rather distasteful. It's easy to point to these things (although always excluding books) and shout: "Correlation! Correlation!" This fails to notice one or two important factors, mankind has been violent long before music, films, videos, computer games and even books. If violence was not part of our inherent makeup we would never have survived as a species. If we succeeded in eradicating violence totally from our being, how long would we continue to survive? Not too long in evolutionary terms I imagine.
He moves on quoting approvingly from the song Gee Officer Krupkee from West Side Story: "“We never had the love that ev’ry child oughta get./ We ain’t no delinquents,/ We’re misunderstood./ Deep down inside us there is good!”". There might be an element of this in some cases, but it doesn't account for the criminality of those where this doesn't apply. Also even if this element exists, it's no excuse for crime; each person has to make their own decisions and live with them. A poor childhood is no excuse for murder.
Talking of gang members he says: "What we do know is that they seem to want to celebrate their unique identity and independence from normal society." This to me is I think plain wrong, if they wanted to be as independent as he suggests they'd maybe emigrate, or alternatively attempt to form their own states. I think he's confusing a desire to be an individual and individualistic with total independence; it may be speakcrime (in a socialist society) to say it, but there are many people who wish and try to be individualistic; they seem to manage it without murder. It's only a crime to be an individual in a socialist type society.
He continues: "In London they use Jamaican patois and make up slang that only their friends can understand; they gain street cred from wearing the latest designer clothes and having the most technically hot mobile phones; and they rap about their exploits." I say there's nothing wrong with any of that (it's behaviour I'm unlikely to indulge in, but neither will I condemn it); if those exploits consist of crimes then that's another matter, but none of those other things present, or are even symptoms of any problem.
He moves on and refers to education, which I'll come back to, but then attacks the "instant society" adding: "And when the results don’t come — as is inevitable — they get angry." For me this is just another excuse; we're all subject to these pressures, by now there'd be total anarchy if there was any substance to this assertion.
Going back to education, and he quite correctly defines this in terms of complete bringing up, I think he makes some valid points, but he fails to get down to the essentials of violence. I return to what I said earlier, violence is a natural part of our makeup, and as we're all individuals, some people will be more violent than others. The challenge and where we have failed, is to accept that violence is part of us and to teach people to channel it correctly.
I quote: "What is it about boys — it is usually boys — that makes them reject all well-meaning offers? They want to be their own man, to do their own thing. Perhaps they have been excluded from school, or have a grudge against organisations, or they simply think it is not “cool” to be helped." Firstly it would seem to apply to increasing numbers of girls too, but maybe the "well-meaning offer" simply isn't attractive to the people it's aimed at. Violence is no longer judged on its merits, there is an assumption that all violence is bad, whereas only wrongful violence should be looked on as bad. Even legal sports with an element of violence (such as boxing) are criticised for being violent. If we're going to ostracise people simply for violence without distinguishing between good and bad, then I don't think we can be too surprised when we are visited with the bad.
