Quote:
Originally Posted by TSR  where does the 'authoritarian' stop, though. anti-social behavior is against the law - it's not the same as murder, no, but to impose any punishment could be argued as authoritarianisim |
Please. It should be perfectly clear that I'm referring to it as authoritarianism with regards to the extremely oppressive nature of constant for offences which don't merit such extreme measure. Prison on the other hand is reserved-- or at least, ought to be reserved-- for severe offences, and even then it isn't considered lightly. Personally, I don't see how constant surveillance and spying on people in this manner is a sign of a progressive society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSR this argument's been going 'round for years and nobody's done anything about it. i agree - address the cause. however: what about those who've already fallen into the anti-social mindset? the gov't has had YEARS to sort it out, but haven't. changing the attitudes of older brothers & sisters could be a good start (roll models and such)
a new tax alienates people. whatever the gov't does is going to alienate somebody. |
In this case, the people that the move alienates are the people that need to be brought back into the fold. This is hardly comparable to a 'new tax'. It might
annoy people, but it wouldn't put them in a position where they feel that they have to retreat into an "us versus them" mentality. The reason this is important in this instance is that the people are already prone to this view, and to push them further in that direction seems to me to be a step backwards.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TSR that's relevant to this how? this is targeted at persistant offenders |
I've thrown that in purely to elucidate my stance; it's there for the sake of clarity alone.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TSR congrats, you took what she said & manipulated it out of all initial meaning. |
No, the conclusion she drew in her argument was: "Rights come with responsibilty, violate your responsibility to follow the laws of this country then you violate the rights of freedom that come with it."- which does, on the face of it, appear to condone the forfeit of civil liberties for offenders.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TSR no, it's an enforcement of the law which allows the person to avoid jail time. harassment? probably, but some people just need prodded
question: when do you send them to jail? after 10 ASBOs? or do you give them a message after 1 of "here, cheif, we're watching you!" |
This is where my earlier clarification comes in. The problem with ASBOs is that the vague language it uses to define what falls under its jurisdiction (e.g. if something 'causes alarm') allows for the inclusion of acts that aren't necessarily actual crimes. I don't believe that people deserve to be shielded from occurrences which people are just annoyed about, like youths being too loud, unruly, or loitering in large groups.
I don't really see the use of ASBOs, beyond ridiculous political posturing.
If someone's guilty of harassing people, they ought to charge them under existing harassment laws. Likewise, if someone has been stealing they ought to be charged under theft laws, ad so forth. If that particular crime is appropriately punishable by imprisonment, then you imprison the culprit if proved guilty. If it's not, then you don't. The support for ASBOs at all, as far as I'm concerned, stems more from a senseless mistrust of young people than it does from any particular rational basis.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TSR perhaps for some. for some it will work though (as proven)
include some form of social education* in their 'rehab' which will mean the police don't bother them again unless they re-offend, upon passing
*in a school, before you all take that the wrong way |
You'll notice that I referred to
long term results, not preposterous quick fixes, motivated by political point scoring by appearing to take a 'tough stance' on crime. Which is precisely what this is.
Keeping tabs on someone's every move
might stop a person reoffending, but you might no doubt achieve the same by, say, a bad Ludovico Technique imitation. Whether the implementation functions doesn't automatically make it right.
But thanks for the lecture.
