Monday, January 08, 2007
Between the Devil and the Sea
The Times reports on judicial outrage over planned so-called sentencing reform.
The government proposals include the usual meaningless changes: "...limit the use of community punishments in favour of fines...". Well a fine is only a punishment if it gets paid, and community punishment is just an oxymoron.
"... they also express fears that extending the range of offences that can be dealt with by fixed-penalty notices would create an impression among the public that such crimes were not being taken seriously..." Not like a tough community punishment then? Showing that crimes are taken seriously.
Half the problem is that community punishment is regarded as a "tough" option, I blogged on Lord Phillips serving a term. His perception of what is tough is what passes as normal work for most people.
Equally culpable are politicians who instead of changing laws to ensure that effective punishments are available and used, prefer to talk tough and do nothing. Especially as prison is so expensive, this again is really down to the politicians. Who says prisoners need television in their cells? Why should they receive compensation for being forced to "cold turkey" off their drugs? There's some perverse belief that the depravation of liberty alone is the punishment; in reality that should only be one aspect of the prison sentence, the criminal should have to put up with the rest of prison as part and parcel of the punishment. If they don't like it, who cares?
Criminal sentencing has become largely a joke. Many crimes have no effective punishment and often the government and judiciary tend to blame each other. I blame both of them, but it must be more down to the government.
What we need are cheap effective sentences, and without them, it isn't the judiciary and politicians who suffer. It's the ordinary people trying to go about their everyday business, crime isn't an illness, or something that can't be helped, it's a lifestyle choice and one that impacts badly on others. The judiciary and government should wake up to this basic truth and start giving criminals what they deserve.
The government proposals include the usual meaningless changes: "...limit the use of community punishments in favour of fines...". Well a fine is only a punishment if it gets paid, and community punishment is just an oxymoron.
"... they also express fears that extending the range of offences that can be dealt with by fixed-penalty notices would create an impression among the public that such crimes were not being taken seriously..." Not like a tough community punishment then? Showing that crimes are taken seriously.
Half the problem is that community punishment is regarded as a "tough" option, I blogged on Lord Phillips serving a term. His perception of what is tough is what passes as normal work for most people.
Equally culpable are politicians who instead of changing laws to ensure that effective punishments are available and used, prefer to talk tough and do nothing. Especially as prison is so expensive, this again is really down to the politicians. Who says prisoners need television in their cells? Why should they receive compensation for being forced to "cold turkey" off their drugs? There's some perverse belief that the depravation of liberty alone is the punishment; in reality that should only be one aspect of the prison sentence, the criminal should have to put up with the rest of prison as part and parcel of the punishment. If they don't like it, who cares?
Criminal sentencing has become largely a joke. Many crimes have no effective punishment and often the government and judiciary tend to blame each other. I blame both of them, but it must be more down to the government.
What we need are cheap effective sentences, and without them, it isn't the judiciary and politicians who suffer. It's the ordinary people trying to go about their everyday business, crime isn't an illness, or something that can't be helped, it's a lifestyle choice and one that impacts badly on others. The judiciary and government should wake up to this basic truth and start giving criminals what they deserve.
Labels: Crime
Friday, December 29, 2006
"Where getting more like America every day"
The above quote comes from a section of comments about an armed robbery in York. I can't believe it myself as apparently a handgun was used in the attack, but haven't these been banned by the benevolent government? You know: "... if it saves the life of one child it'll be worth it ..." ad nauseam.
Anyway clearly no one told the criminals about the handgun ban and now they've used one to commit a crime. Back to the (in the main) appalling comments if the person is referring to spelling and grammar then they might be correct as I suspect they actually want to say: "we're" as opposed to "where". Never mind, just another product of our "envy of the world" education system.
One commentator gives some information missing from the story: "Police turned up in response to panic alarm at 8pm, were more interested in two youths on a moped and left again leaving staff locked inside with robbers! Obviously they left these details out of the press release." Thus summing up the effectiveness of the modern British police. To return to the original comment, the person has missed one very significant difference in that in America, the shopkeeper might well be legally armed, in which case they'll be in a far better position to defend themselves and their property, leaving the police free to deal with important issues such as mopeds.
Another commentator has the right idea, but seems rather short on practicality: "Arm shopkeepers and let them shoot robbers provided it is all on CCTV showing an honest shot!" Yes all very well and good, but what if the CCTV happens to be pointing elsewhere, or is obscured at the time of shooting? You can hardly ask the robber to kindly step into focus "just so I can have a legal shot for the camera sir". So I say allow the shopkeepers (and householders) to arm themseleves and protect them legally with a "castle doctrine". "If it saves the life or property of just one shopkeeper or householder it'll be worth it"
So no I'm afraid we're not getting more like America every day, but I live in hope, with proper application and determination, we might one day get there.
Anyway clearly no one told the criminals about the handgun ban and now they've used one to commit a crime. Back to the (in the main) appalling comments if the person is referring to spelling and grammar then they might be correct as I suspect they actually want to say: "we're" as opposed to "where". Never mind, just another product of our "envy of the world" education system.
One commentator gives some information missing from the story: "Police turned up in response to panic alarm at 8pm, were more interested in two youths on a moped and left again leaving staff locked inside with robbers! Obviously they left these details out of the press release." Thus summing up the effectiveness of the modern British police. To return to the original comment, the person has missed one very significant difference in that in America, the shopkeeper might well be legally armed, in which case they'll be in a far better position to defend themselves and their property, leaving the police free to deal with important issues such as mopeds.
Another commentator has the right idea, but seems rather short on practicality: "Arm shopkeepers and let them shoot robbers provided it is all on CCTV showing an honest shot!" Yes all very well and good, but what if the CCTV happens to be pointing elsewhere, or is obscured at the time of shooting? You can hardly ask the robber to kindly step into focus "just so I can have a legal shot for the camera sir". So I say allow the shopkeepers (and householders) to arm themseleves and protect them legally with a "castle doctrine". "If it saves the life or property of just one shopkeeper or householder it'll be worth it"
So no I'm afraid we're not getting more like America every day, but I live in hope, with proper application and determination, we might one day get there.
Tags: guns, armed citizenry, crime
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: armed citizenry, Crime, guns
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Professor Canter returns
With the arrest of a suspect in the Ipswich murders, it comes as no surprise that Professor Canter returns to the pages of The Times here. This time is different however lacking the pre-Christmas winterval book plug.
Also lacking is his old style, gone are the contradictions and statements of the obvious and instead we're treated to an exercise in banality and a commentary of what the police do. I would have thought a policeman or policewoman might be better placed to tell us what the police do.
Unfortunately, also missing is him telling us what the psychologist does, and I suspect there is good reason for this, something along the lines of the answer being: "nothing". I would have thought that with his "magical insights" see his previous writing, the psychologist would be the ideal "professional" to tell us if this suspect is guilty or not. The suspect himself has publicly stated he has no alibis for any of the murders (itself unusual as no one (apart from the murderer) knows when they happened, so how would you know if you had an alibi or not?) Also that he knew all five victims (what's the odds?). Professor Canter admits that getting the necessary forensic evidence could be very painstaking and time consuming; so I'd have thought it a great boon to know that yes the police are concentrating on the right suspect.
I would have thought that with psychology being clearly recognised as a science that with some psychological techniques and analysis Professor Canter should be able to tell us definitely yes this suspect is capable to these crimes or no he isn't. Remember to that there have been proposals to suggest that these things can be spotted very early on and that such people can and should be "treated" before even committing any crime. If that is truly the state of the science, once they've actually committed the crime, spotting them should be child's play especially to an advanced practitioner such as the professor.
Only a nasty cynic such as myself would say that the reason the professor has nothing to say and can't actually do any of this stuff, because psychology is just a load of mumbo jumbo; that exists merely to pay the wages of the practitioners. I wonder if a true scientific study was undertaken, in the actual tangible provable benefits of psychology what we might actually find, and I'd be surprised if we could rate it above astrology.
I don't think I've seen a horoscope in The Times, perhaps they need one.
Also lacking is his old style, gone are the contradictions and statements of the obvious and instead we're treated to an exercise in banality and a commentary of what the police do. I would have thought a policeman or policewoman might be better placed to tell us what the police do.
Unfortunately, also missing is him telling us what the psychologist does, and I suspect there is good reason for this, something along the lines of the answer being: "nothing". I would have thought that with his "magical insights" see his previous writing, the psychologist would be the ideal "professional" to tell us if this suspect is guilty or not. The suspect himself has publicly stated he has no alibis for any of the murders (itself unusual as no one (apart from the murderer) knows when they happened, so how would you know if you had an alibi or not?) Also that he knew all five victims (what's the odds?). Professor Canter admits that getting the necessary forensic evidence could be very painstaking and time consuming; so I'd have thought it a great boon to know that yes the police are concentrating on the right suspect.
I would have thought that with psychology being clearly recognised as a science that with some psychological techniques and analysis Professor Canter should be able to tell us definitely yes this suspect is capable to these crimes or no he isn't. Remember to that there have been proposals to suggest that these things can be spotted very early on and that such people can and should be "treated" before even committing any crime. If that is truly the state of the science, once they've actually committed the crime, spotting them should be child's play especially to an advanced practitioner such as the professor.
Only a nasty cynic such as myself would say that the reason the professor has nothing to say and can't actually do any of this stuff, because psychology is just a load of mumbo jumbo; that exists merely to pay the wages of the practitioners. I wonder if a true scientific study was undertaken, in the actual tangible provable benefits of psychology what we might actually find, and I'd be surprised if we could rate it above astrology.
I don't think I've seen a horoscope in The Times, perhaps they need one.
Tags: crime, justice, psychology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Crime, Psychology
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Professor Canter again
With the tragic death toll in Suffolk rising, Professor Canter returns to the pages of The Times here with another "analysis" piece. Yet again it's a mixture of statements of the obvious and contradictions, perhaps someone should analyse the professor.
Yesterday we were told of the importance of finding the first murder, as the killer would have slipped up and left important clues, making it relatively easy to solve. Today we're told: "Whatever distorted idea he had about the necessity of the killing will have given way to the cold logic of disposing of her body with the minimum evidence to lead back to him." and further on: "...as the pressures build from the massive police investigation and media interest, he can no longer take the precautions he originally did." Oh so in fact the first murder is likely to be the hardest to solve, well make up your mind professor.
We have some further speculation, no doubt only ever thought of by such an exalted mind: "It therefore has to be possible that even if there was one evil mind behind this he had a willing assistant." Actually professor, by my count that would make at least two evil minds, the "willing assistant" must be evil too, also I somehow suspect that this might have just managed to occur to the police quite independently of your own input.
The professor writes at some length on some killings in America and focuses on the geographic nature of the location of finding the bodies: "What brought the offender to this area? Is it a place he knew from more innocent activities? Or is he trying to put a distance between his base and the victims’ bodies? If so, how far would he think was an appropriate distance?" Yes well, all very good, but in practical terms we're far more likely to be able to answer such questions after the killer is caught, and even posing these questions to the investigative team will give them a bigger conundrum to solve than that of actually catching the killer (or killers); bear in mind that each location may have been chosen for a different reason.
We then get a lot of unnecessary distinguishing between these killings, and the shootings at Columbine and Hungerford, so he could just as well have drawn unnecessary distinctions with a fraud or a mugging.
A ridiculous statement of the obvious follows: "...the killer, or killers, by now will have thought through how best to avoid detection. He will be deeply interested in the police inquiry, but be at pains to avoid drawing attention to himself. As the international media interest grows he may be tempted to reveal his hand some more, but is more likely to be driven further underground." I translate this as: "It could be green or it could be red, but until we see it we really don't know." Do you think maybe the professor gets to be an expert witness in court?
He has more on the role of the police which seems to have changed a little into a more traditional role: "...the police will have the task of filtering out all the disturbed, or silly, individuals who seek some distorted glory, or confused expiation of their imagined sins, by confessing to the police for crimes they have not committed." Actually professor I'd have thought you'd have been best at this, I mean you'd be able to look at the psychology and with your "magical insights" (see yesterday) you'd be able to quickly identify and eliminate these people from the police enquiry.
Finally we get the admission of a sad, but inevitable truth: "...in the past serial killings against victims with whom the offender had no obvious connections have usually been solved by the killer making a mistake ..." Yes indeed no amount of psychology seems to work. We get a nice sop to the "big brother" state though (Is the professor perhaps hoping for something?) "Nowadays, with automatic numberplate recognition and closed-circuit television footage, ... it is much easier for even the most careful criminals to leave identifying traces." Just think if we had compulsory ID cards, perhaps the killer might have dropped his, wouldn't that have made it a lot easier? My view on CCTV and automatic number plate recognition is that any criminal with half a brain could easily avoid them (I won't say how).
Yet again an invaluable and insightful contribution from the professor to our understanding. Thank you so much.
Yesterday we were told of the importance of finding the first murder, as the killer would have slipped up and left important clues, making it relatively easy to solve. Today we're told: "Whatever distorted idea he had about the necessity of the killing will have given way to the cold logic of disposing of her body with the minimum evidence to lead back to him." and further on: "...as the pressures build from the massive police investigation and media interest, he can no longer take the precautions he originally did." Oh so in fact the first murder is likely to be the hardest to solve, well make up your mind professor.
We have some further speculation, no doubt only ever thought of by such an exalted mind: "It therefore has to be possible that even if there was one evil mind behind this he had a willing assistant." Actually professor, by my count that would make at least two evil minds, the "willing assistant" must be evil too, also I somehow suspect that this might have just managed to occur to the police quite independently of your own input.
The professor writes at some length on some killings in America and focuses on the geographic nature of the location of finding the bodies: "What brought the offender to this area? Is it a place he knew from more innocent activities? Or is he trying to put a distance between his base and the victims’ bodies? If so, how far would he think was an appropriate distance?" Yes well, all very good, but in practical terms we're far more likely to be able to answer such questions after the killer is caught, and even posing these questions to the investigative team will give them a bigger conundrum to solve than that of actually catching the killer (or killers); bear in mind that each location may have been chosen for a different reason.
We then get a lot of unnecessary distinguishing between these killings, and the shootings at Columbine and Hungerford, so he could just as well have drawn unnecessary distinctions with a fraud or a mugging.
A ridiculous statement of the obvious follows: "...the killer, or killers, by now will have thought through how best to avoid detection. He will be deeply interested in the police inquiry, but be at pains to avoid drawing attention to himself. As the international media interest grows he may be tempted to reveal his hand some more, but is more likely to be driven further underground." I translate this as: "It could be green or it could be red, but until we see it we really don't know." Do you think maybe the professor gets to be an expert witness in court?
He has more on the role of the police which seems to have changed a little into a more traditional role: "...the police will have the task of filtering out all the disturbed, or silly, individuals who seek some distorted glory, or confused expiation of their imagined sins, by confessing to the police for crimes they have not committed." Actually professor I'd have thought you'd have been best at this, I mean you'd be able to look at the psychology and with your "magical insights" (see yesterday) you'd be able to quickly identify and eliminate these people from the police enquiry.
Finally we get the admission of a sad, but inevitable truth: "...in the past serial killings against victims with whom the offender had no obvious connections have usually been solved by the killer making a mistake ..." Yes indeed no amount of psychology seems to work. We get a nice sop to the "big brother" state though (Is the professor perhaps hoping for something?) "Nowadays, with automatic numberplate recognition and closed-circuit television footage, ... it is much easier for even the most careful criminals to leave identifying traces." Just think if we had compulsory ID cards, perhaps the killer might have dropped his, wouldn't that have made it a lot easier? My view on CCTV and automatic number plate recognition is that any criminal with half a brain could easily avoid them (I won't say how).
Yet again an invaluable and insightful contribution from the professor to our understanding. Thank you so much.
Tags: crime, justice, psychology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Labels: Crime, Psychology
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
Do You Know What You're Talking About?
With these worrying murders of prostitutes in Suffolk and the likelihood that a serial killer is at large, The Times gives us an analysis here from a Professor David Canter.
The good professor starts with some statements of the obvious: "They frequently have criminal backgrounds that can include burglary and theft, drug dealing or, of course, violence. They evolve through various stages of criminality..." Yes well, but when people call for tough deterrent sentences I don't hear you singing professor. Surely we shuold have strongly escalating deterrent sentences to discourage this ascent of criminality?
He then tells us: "...if the police can identify the perpetrator’s first violent crime, (referring specifically to a murder fdm) they will come very close to solving the case." As: "At the time of that first crime, he would not have honed his skills." Yes, but if at the time the police couldn't solve it then, it's going to be much harder now isn't it? If it was some time ago then the trail might have gone cold, unless of course the police made such a pig's ear of the initial investigation. In which case of course the job might be comaparatively easy.
The professor goes on to tell us of the killer's motivation, although in the following paragraph he admits that it is just speculation and adds nothing to the investigation. The professor continues: "Officers no longer believe that magical insights can be had from the poorly informed opinion of some Cracker-like figure." I'm not sure what to make of that, "officers no longer believe", does the professor think that perhaps they should? He certainly offers no justifications for a belief in "magical insights". For the director of the Centre of Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool, he seems very non-committal.
We're then told: "The investigative psychologists who contribute to police investigations do not call themselves profilers any more but behavioural investigative analysts. They see their job as operational guidance rather than psychological profiles." I translate this as: we couldn't do what he thought we could, but as we're all getting paid and need to justify our existence, we've changed our job title.
The professor gives us some detail on the new role: "They help the police to decide how to identify potential suspects. They give guidance on how suspects may be put into some order of priority. Most importantly, they draw on geographical profiling to create a very detailed analysis of where the victims’ bodies were found to build a picture of what the offender’s “mental map” is of the area, and how it may be influenced by other locations with which he is familiar, such as where he lives or works. That can then be used to focus house-to-house inquiries and other intelligence searches." Well I'd have thought that was the role of the police, you know identifying suspects, prioritising tasks etc. It just sounds like normal investigative work to me.
Still all is not lost as the professor then tells us what the police should do: "Police then need to identify the interpersonal and intellectual consistencies that the offender exhibits by detailed study of how he committed the crimes. For example, leaving the bodies in water will have reduced the forensic evidence but could carry great psychological significance. If there is no obvious sexual activity, as has been reported in this instance, it suggests anger rather than sexual sadism." Personally I couldn't care less for all this guff, I'm not interested in what motivates the killer, I like the vast majority of the public simply want the killer caught and brought to justice (which on the bare facts should mean hanging here), and I rather thought that was the job of the police.
We are then treated to another statement of the obvious: "One significant problem in this case will be the unwillingness of most potential witnesses — clients of prostitutes — to present themselves for questioning." What an insight, I can see why we need these sort of people to guide the police.
The professor finally concludes: "The confusions and inefficiencies in that investigation (Jack the ripper fdm) cast a long shadow over their work. No longer do you hear of police talking of the completely ineffective strategy of leaving no stone unturned. Instead they now have highly trained and sophisticated teams working steadily through the appropriate options. These actions will be guided by behavioural and other scientists, but in the end it will be the intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So if the guidance from the behavioural and other scientists doesn't solve the crime why do we have it? Note the clever inclusion of other scientists, clearly this behavioural analysis is just as important as forensics. In the end the professor admits that it's the: "intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So perhaps someone could tell me why do we pay these behavioural bods from the public purse?
The good professor starts with some statements of the obvious: "They frequently have criminal backgrounds that can include burglary and theft, drug dealing or, of course, violence. They evolve through various stages of criminality..." Yes well, but when people call for tough deterrent sentences I don't hear you singing professor. Surely we shuold have strongly escalating deterrent sentences to discourage this ascent of criminality?
He then tells us: "...if the police can identify the perpetrator’s first violent crime, (referring specifically to a murder fdm) they will come very close to solving the case." As: "At the time of that first crime, he would not have honed his skills." Yes, but if at the time the police couldn't solve it then, it's going to be much harder now isn't it? If it was some time ago then the trail might have gone cold, unless of course the police made such a pig's ear of the initial investigation. In which case of course the job might be comaparatively easy.
The professor goes on to tell us of the killer's motivation, although in the following paragraph he admits that it is just speculation and adds nothing to the investigation. The professor continues: "Officers no longer believe that magical insights can be had from the poorly informed opinion of some Cracker-like figure." I'm not sure what to make of that, "officers no longer believe", does the professor think that perhaps they should? He certainly offers no justifications for a belief in "magical insights". For the director of the Centre of Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool, he seems very non-committal.
We're then told: "The investigative psychologists who contribute to police investigations do not call themselves profilers any more but behavioural investigative analysts. They see their job as operational guidance rather than psychological profiles." I translate this as: we couldn't do what he thought we could, but as we're all getting paid and need to justify our existence, we've changed our job title.
The professor gives us some detail on the new role: "They help the police to decide how to identify potential suspects. They give guidance on how suspects may be put into some order of priority. Most importantly, they draw on geographical profiling to create a very detailed analysis of where the victims’ bodies were found to build a picture of what the offender’s “mental map” is of the area, and how it may be influenced by other locations with which he is familiar, such as where he lives or works. That can then be used to focus house-to-house inquiries and other intelligence searches." Well I'd have thought that was the role of the police, you know identifying suspects, prioritising tasks etc. It just sounds like normal investigative work to me.
Still all is not lost as the professor then tells us what the police should do: "Police then need to identify the interpersonal and intellectual consistencies that the offender exhibits by detailed study of how he committed the crimes. For example, leaving the bodies in water will have reduced the forensic evidence but could carry great psychological significance. If there is no obvious sexual activity, as has been reported in this instance, it suggests anger rather than sexual sadism." Personally I couldn't care less for all this guff, I'm not interested in what motivates the killer, I like the vast majority of the public simply want the killer caught and brought to justice (which on the bare facts should mean hanging here), and I rather thought that was the job of the police.
We are then treated to another statement of the obvious: "One significant problem in this case will be the unwillingness of most potential witnesses — clients of prostitutes — to present themselves for questioning." What an insight, I can see why we need these sort of people to guide the police.
The professor finally concludes: "The confusions and inefficiencies in that investigation (Jack the ripper fdm) cast a long shadow over their work. No longer do you hear of police talking of the completely ineffective strategy of leaving no stone unturned. Instead they now have highly trained and sophisticated teams working steadily through the appropriate options. These actions will be guided by behavioural and other scientists, but in the end it will be the intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So if the guidance from the behavioural and other scientists doesn't solve the crime why do we have it? Note the clever inclusion of other scientists, clearly this behavioural analysis is just as important as forensics. In the end the professor admits that it's the: "intelligence and determination of the investigative team that will bring the killer to justice." So perhaps someone could tell me why do we pay these behavioural bods from the public purse?
Labels: Crime
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.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Why they do it
The Times reporting on the murder on lawyer Thomas ap Rhys Pryce, have done a side feature called Why they do it here. Basically reporting on a study by the Economic and Social Research Council, which seems to have involved asking muggers for the motivation for their crimes.
Now I'm not one to presume that just because you ask a question you'll get an honest answer, but the five main motives seem to have some kind of "ring of truth" about them:
"To have a good time"
"Keeping up appearances"
"For the buzz"
"A desire to fight"
"Informal justice"
This is of course a blow to leftie criminologists. Surely they were motivated by social inequality? Perhaps being unable to progress in an oppressive capitalist atmosphere, due to a denial of opportunity, they turned to crime as they had no choice. Or maybe it's really a cry for help.
Well in their own words, it appears not so. Let's face it they know what they are doing and they've given us the reasons; which are quite close to what some of us have suspected for some time. They commit crimes to "have a good time" etc, strong harsh punishments are what will deter them, and if the punishment doesn't deter, then it must teach a lesson. The lesson it must teach is that when you are caught you will have to pay for your crimes with interest, and that the crime is your own responsibility, the fault lies with the perpetrator and solely with the perpetrator.
The next time anyone is tempted to think of socialist excuses as reasons for crime, I hope they remember that in the words of the perpetrators, these are the motivations:
"To have a good time"
"Keeping up appearances"
"For the buzz"
"A desire to fight"
"Informal justice"
Now I'm not one to presume that just because you ask a question you'll get an honest answer, but the five main motives seem to have some kind of "ring of truth" about them:
"To have a good time"
"Keeping up appearances"
"For the buzz"
"A desire to fight"
"Informal justice"
This is of course a blow to leftie criminologists. Surely they were motivated by social inequality? Perhaps being unable to progress in an oppressive capitalist atmosphere, due to a denial of opportunity, they turned to crime as they had no choice. Or maybe it's really a cry for help.
Well in their own words, it appears not so. Let's face it they know what they are doing and they've given us the reasons; which are quite close to what some of us have suspected for some time. They commit crimes to "have a good time" etc, strong harsh punishments are what will deter them, and if the punishment doesn't deter, then it must teach a lesson. The lesson it must teach is that when you are caught you will have to pay for your crimes with interest, and that the crime is your own responsibility, the fault lies with the perpetrator and solely with the perpetrator.
The next time anyone is tempted to think of socialist excuses as reasons for crime, I hope they remember that in the words of the perpetrators, these are the motivations:
"To have a good time"
"Keeping up appearances"
"For the buzz"
"A desire to fight"
"Informal justice"
Labels: Crime
