[Politics] Police should give anti-social youths "a taste of their own medicine", says Home Secretary.

[Frankie LiDeo]

Some people were coastin' for a Toastin'.


Although not allowing naughty persons to play with other naughties is harsher than suits.

[MarkMono]

I can only assume the home secretary wasn't talking about drug dealers.

I don't think they'd particularly mind a taste of their own medicine.

[Largest of Gregs]

fucking brilliant idea

[MarkMono]

Its a point, I mean, the media are going to be hounding people anyway...

[Jenpot]

Originally Posted by Dario

So, anyone who doesn't behave accordingly automatically forfeits their civil liberties? That way totalitarianism lies.

Also, sensationalism a-go-go.

Anyone that spends their time terrorizing innocent people deserves to be hounded. I'm not saying we should bring back capital punishment, but police constantly having a go at repeat and notorious offenders? Why not?

[Dario]

Originally Posted by Jenpot

Anyone that spends their time terrorizing innocent people deserves to be hounded. I'm not saying we should bring back capital punishment, but police constantly having a go at repeat and notorious offenders? Why not?

Because it's an approach that purely serves to satiate a petty vindictiveness which, given the fact that the nature of the move in and of itself is one of active harassment, will not only fail to reap any beneficial long-term results but may in turn serve to further justify these individuals' sense of disdain towards authority as a whole?

[TSR]

Originally Posted by endless psych

Encourage communities to get involved in tackling the problem rather then relying on external organisations.

the 1 or 2 individuals that are motivated to help out won't do so out of fear, and won't do anything until others step up also. then you possibly risk mob mentality, which is way worse than an officer stalking you for 4 days

Originally Posted by Draven

No, fair point, but I see this tactic as an infringement on basic civil rights and as bullying

i can see how it could be taken that way. some only learn when they're forced to think however, and as it's for persistant offenders, i'd imagine it's not just done on a whim, but you need a judges approval (at least i hope you would)

as for making the police less popular...some will think less of them, some will think more of them, so it could go either way, really

Originally Posted by Dario

You're essentially advocating that 'repeat offenders' are spied on? Sure, there's nothing remotely authoritarian about that at all.

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

Great, we should give them points for effort.

yes. yes we should.
there's no harm in coming up with ideas and disscussing them - good points/bad points. you then go away, work out the bad points, and come back with a revised plan

they've had permission to test this - with positive results. note that the article doesn't say anything about how popular it is

Why not try to identify and address root causes of said anti-social behaviour, rather than shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted? One of which you could say would be those in authority taking on board attitudes which effective alienate young people from the wider community at large, as this particular measure is likely to.

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.

That's not even bringing up the fact that "anti-social behaviour" in itself is a fairly recent, and vague term which, whilst including things like aggressive behaviour and vandalism (as if they aren't covered by any other laws), seems to me to be mainly geared towards targeting those who are merely perceived to be a 'nuisance' more than anything else in specific.

that's relevant to this how? this is targeted at persistant offenders

Originally Posted by Dario

So, anyone who doesn't behave accordingly automatically forfeits their civil liberties? That way totalitarianism lies.

Also, sensationalism a-go-go.

congrats, you took what she said & manipulated it out of all initial meaning.

Originally Posted by djtoast

yes but there's two problems here - firstly the notion that we try to rehabilitate people, and once they've served any punishment for previous crimes they're back to "normal" again. contentious but that's how it works, and with good reason, otherwise we make people permanently criminal upon their first conviction.

secondly the idea that people are inocent until proven guilty by a court of law, not by the police... the police's job is to collect and present evidence, not to meet out justice; otherwise heinous corruption creeps in very rapidly.

we do have to tackle repeat offenders; i'd be all for giving them tags for extended periods and listing extensive no-go areas, disallowing them to meet other tagged associates, hauling them in any time they were within half a mile of a reported crime, etc etc etc... as part of their rehabilitation after a conviction.

but what's being presented here sounds far too much like turning the police into a lynch mob. not good.

i think the proposal's being made out to be something it's not here. the police are filming and reminding the persistant offenders (not 1st timers) that they're about and watching. they're not walking up behind them with their baton and kicking the crap out of them. lynch mob? not even close...

Originally Posted by Dario

Because it's an approach that purely serves to satiate a petty vindictiveness which, given the fact that the nature of the move in and of itself is one of active harassment

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!"

will not only fail to reap any beneficial long-term results but may in turn serve to further justify these individuals' sense of disdain towards authority as a whole?

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

[I'm Your God Now]

Fight fire with fire etc.

[djbarry]

*grabs popcorn and awaits Scapegoat finding this thread*

[TSR]

Originally Posted by I'm Your God Now

Fight fire with fire etc.

oh good, more general statements along the lines of "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

this isn't fighting fire with fire, nor is it an eye for an eye. see past the piss-poor "a taste of their own medicine" statement

[Draven]

Originally Posted by TSR

oh good, more general statements along the lines of "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

Monster post btw.

[TheCastrator]

Originally Posted by I'm Your God Now

Fight fire with fire etc.

And to think I was using water all this time...

[Draven]

The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire...

[Dario]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[0x21]

Originally Posted by Dario

You're essentially advocating that 'repeat offenders' are spied on? Sure, there's nothing remotely authoritarian about that at all.

The quote I read referred to people on their 3rd ASBO*. So they are likely going to be the people who are going to be nothing but a nuisance to everyone else. And if following them for a few days to stop them committing more anti-social crimes works, then I'm all for it. They are probably also going to be the kind of people who won't be able to dislike the police any more for some more visible policing. And if the study has shown it to reduce crime then I can't really complain.

The way the stuff is worded is terrible, but ignoring that I can just about see the point.

The thing about being extra vigilant for things like TV license, car tax/insurance, council tax, benefit fraud etc for people who have ASBO's makes sense (despite being described terribly), since I'm sure statisically they have a higher chance of avoiding these things, and I can't say I'll be particularly upset about them getting a tiny bit of "harrassment"


It has the potiential to go tits up, or lead to a police state if its not properly controlled, but on the whole I'm for it, I think.


*I still remain entirely unconvinced on the whole ASBO thing though. Its better than a couple of warnings, and there really ought to be something else pre-jail, so maybe the ASBO is it, if they were at all likely to be enforced or had any real standing. On the flip side, since ASBOs seem to be dished out for all kinds of nonsense, maybe they shouldn't have too much weighting.