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

[metallideth]

Originally Posted by 0x21

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.

Aye, because they're obviously "nothing but nuisances" as opposed to real people with friends, family, feelings, opinions etc. All this marked-for-life shit just makes me think I'm stuck in a fucking Fritz Lang film.

[Puppy]

Can they stop my neighbour shutting her bedroom blinds wearing nothing but pants though? That's every days this week I've seen chebs and panties. Why would you not shut your blinds before stripping.

[Draven]

Originally Posted by Puppy

Can they stop my neighbour shutting her bedroom blinds wearing nothing but pants though? That's every days this week I've seen chebs and panties. Why would you not shut your blinds before stripping.

Is she hawt?

[Addy]

Originally Posted by Puppy

Can they stop my neighbour shutting her bedroom blinds wearing nothing but pants though? That's every days this week I've seen chebs and panties. Why would you not shut your blinds before stripping.

Exhibitionism?

[0x21]

Originally Posted by metallideth

Aye, because they're obviously "nothing but nuisances" as opposed to real people with friends, family, feelings, opinions etc. All this marked-for-life shit just makes me think I'm stuck in a fucking Fritz Lang film.

I see your point, but how much slack are we supposed to give people?

1 or 2 ASBO's may not really be an issue, but to be fair; they aren't given out completely on a whim, and to be regarded as a repeated anti-social offender, then theres something more going on than someone just being a bit misunderstood or having shitty neighbours.

I don't think they are trying to crack down on 'kids', I don't think anyone really has problems with kids being kids, but surely you'd agree a closer eye should be given to people who are regularly causing disturbances, generally being abusive to other people, and clearly not caring about any negative impact they have on anyone else?

[Dario]

Originally Posted by Puppy

Can they stop my neighbour shutting her bedroom blinds wearing nothing but pants though? That's every days this week I've seen chebs and panties. Why would you not shut your blinds before stripping.

Uh...

In 1999, the Home Office explicitly stated that Asbos were aimed at 'criminal, or sub-criminal behaviour, not minor disputes between neighbours', but there is evidence that they are being used in increasingly creative ways. Only last month, a young Scottish woman received an Asbo banning her from answering the front door or going into her garden in her underwear

[I'm Your God Now]

Originally Posted by TSR

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

I wasn't being serious

[TSR]

Originally Posted by Draven

Monster post btw.

i put a bit more effort into it than i normally do. quiet day at work

Originally Posted by Dario

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.

it's meant to be oppressive - it's an enforcement of the law. you can give them another ASBO or you can make them think about their actions for 4 days

it could be taken as a sign of a progressive society because you're using a non-violent method of trying to make the 'outcasts' become more socially productive rather than destructive

i'm not entirely happy with the proposal mentioned there - you're right as you say later that it's a 'quick fix to score party points'
there should also be mandatory social classes that repeat offenders have to pass before the police back off again, especially if this doesn't work the first time

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.

a new tax of the rich alienates them into a bit of an "us Vs them" mentality. not to the same extent, granted
i can see how it might alienate some, which is part of the reason i don't like what's proposed...but that could send me into a rant about other things, so i'll leave it there.

I've thrown that in purely to elucidate my stance; it's there for the sake of clarity alone.

ah. ok. missed that, sorry
still, if you're not doing anything aggressive then it shouldn't alienate you. might make you considder meeting in a friends house rather than the street corner

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.

as it's written, i guess it does, but i didn't take it as "they're screwing about, do whatever you like to them cos they brought it on themselves"
i read it as "they've violated their social responsibilities, therefore they should receive less compassion than law-abiding citizens and be punished"
1 asbo: possible missunderstanding
#2: "here, cheif, think about you actions..." (slap on the wrists)
#3: "right, we warned you to think, now we're telling you to think"

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.

ASBOs do have their problems, yes. but you get cases where people are talking to a large group and are attacked for no reason other than "fun" or "showing off." these groups haven't been harrassing people so wouldn't necessarily show up on police radar without an ASBO
"he's got 3 ASBOs for repeatedly hanging about in large groups and being aggressive"
i believe that's where this proposal would come in - check the list of ASBOs and see who needs prodded

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.

i agree that this is 1 of those 'quick fix' solutions
*googles "Ludovico Technique"*
this does have the benifit of being non-drug-enduced law enforcement. if you wanted to give people a drug called "make 'em behave" i'd be against it

as touched on earlier, i see this as law enforcement used against law breakers - you're always going to be slightly invasive when enforcing the law, even towards innocent witnesses

But thanks for the lecture.

you should be honoured - it's been a while since a did a post that long

Originally Posted by metallideth

Aye, because they're obviously "nothing but nuisances" as opposed to real people with friends, family, feelings, opinions etc. All this marked-for-life shit just makes me think I'm stuck in a fucking Fritz Lang film.

"marked for life" is gonig a bit far. this is trying to get them back onto the right track, and therefore not be marked for life

Originally Posted by I'm Your God Now

I wasn't being serious

my bad. sorry

[MarkMono]

Silly people: lawbreakers don't have rights.

Not buying that one, huh? How about: If you break the law, you deserve everything thats coming to you.

Hmm even that one seems a little illogical: Two wrongs don't make a right.

Perfect!

[TSR]

sorry if i implied that i think lawbreakers don't have rights. they do, of course they do. but nearly every law enforcement method could be argued as an infirngement of human rights

[MarkMono]

Persecution is not law enforcement, pretty sure we require a state of national emergency for that.

I see your point, I really do, but this is a stupid and pointless idea. Its even more of a guarantee of continued criminality than sending them to jail.

[djtoast]

Originally Posted by TSR

as touched on earlier, i see this as law enforcement used against law breakers - you're always going to be slightly invasive when enforcing the law, even towards innocent witnesses

the problem here though is that you're removing the checks and balances, as it were... normally the police have their actions scrutinized by the courts, in this instance the police are "punishing" people themselves, which is never something that's allowed outside of oppressive dictatorships... somebody who had been convincted of prior offences but had "gone straight" is open to harrassment; the police suddenly have the opportunity to operate almost as raqueteers.

obviously we need to curtail unruly behaviour but there's a reason that no one body should ever be judge, jury and excecutioner.

[TSR]

i do agree that a Judge Dredd system would be a bad idea

i guess i just don't see this as police "punishing" people, more observing them for 4 days to ensure they don't cause criminal damage (of any kind)

this idea does need thought out better though, and needs a different/better spokesperson

[MarkMono]

I just can't get past how wasteful and pointless "We're going to watch people all the time so they don't commit crimes" is.

Exactly what is it going to achieve? If you think it'll make people less likely to commit crimes in future I'd love to hear how. If it achieves anything at all (Which I doubt.) it will just be to make disaffected kids more disaffected. If it was genuinely implementable (And not just a bad joke like the ASBO system.) I'd say it would almost have a criminalising effect.

[LesMTS]

Originally Posted by MarkMono

I just can't get past how wasteful and pointless "We're going to watch people all the time so they don't commit crimes" is.

Exactly what is it going to achieve? If you think it'll make people less likely to commit crimes in future I'd love to hear how. If it achieves anything at all (Which I doubt.) it will just be to make disaffected kids more disaffected. If it was genuinely implementable (And not just a bad joke like the ASBO system.) I'd say it would almost have a criminalising effect.

The ASBO system did have a criminalising effect. Because it was so stupid and practically consequence-free it became a badge of honour.
I guess they though it would work like a kind of "dunce's corner" and peers would ridicule those who got one. It worked more like a medal in the end. Anyone could have seen that coming.