Crime and effective punishment

Working on the theory that Rowan probably won't be racing to respond to Ken Clarke's comments regarding the recent riots as a 'legacy of broken penal system' I thought I'd have a go. Undoubtedly my words will be less erudite and, hopefully, more accessible than Rowan's) but here goes anyway!

Apparently, were we to examine the backgrounds of those who have been collared for their part in the recent riots, we would find that the majority were known criminals who had come into contact with, and been processed by, the judiciary with little or no effect. This should come as no real surprise for the circus that is British criminal law finds itself engaging in ASBOs which are, in my experience, generally to be regarded as ineffective badges of pride for many who receive them. Coppers and PCSOs I talk with often complain that someone will be taken to the nick, charged, appear before the bench, receive their ASBO and be back in the same place from which they were barred within days (and sometimes hours!).

Those who find themselves given community service or bound to appear in a certain place at certain times find the experience anything but punitive. A couple of examples I've heard of (by various means):

A man who'd been convicted of football related incidents was ordered to report to the local nick on match days. When the radio reporter asked him about his punishment mentioned the fact that the spent theSaturday afternoon in the custody suite, where the custody office left a radio playing with the football - so he didn't miss much of the happenings! Now you might say that the punishment was being removed from the actual 'being there' bit, but the bloke didn't think he'd been that punished and found it all a bit funny!

Someone who'd been put away for three months for theft stole a car on his way home from the prison because he didn't want to have to wait for public transport! Funny and depressing in one episode.

A senior officer spoke last night in the BBC discussion on the riots saying, "There was 'no intelligence' on the part of the Police before the riots." How very true. But it doesn't take much intelligence (hence I can understand it) to see that those who engaged in the rioting were the 'hard core' criminal types who live outside of society's rules and codes of conduct. These are the people who live for themselves and merely see prison and the legal system as a niggling nuisance rather than effective deterrent. These are the people who laugh as community sentences, ignore fines and come out of prison largely unaffected and totally unabated in their acts and attitudes. These are indeed the feral underclass which needs to be dealt with be4cause they draw the next group of people into the pool with them.

Then we have the 'followers', those who look at the hard core and see them get away with whatever they appear to choose to with little obvious effect. They see them act as they want and see this underpinned and supported by the welfare state in terms of benefits and the like. These are the people who filled the spaces behind the real criminals and emulated their heroes and in doing so filled the gaps and made detaining the ringleaders more difficult. They are the 'noise' that interferes with the process. The problem is that the two groups together make for something exciting and this causes others, who would otherwise be regarded as honest and law-abiding, to be caught up.

Sadly it is these people 'caught up' who are affected by the process of law and it is these who are seeing quite punitive sentencing now which is devastating for them and fatal for their future careers and expectations. The hard core are, as a generalisation, academically limited and having few career choices see no loss in their being acted against by the system. The followers are a mixed bag and for some the only hope they have is to be promoted into the hard core whilst others, coming to their senses and realising their potential slip back into being part of a stable and productive society.

It appears that 70% of those arrested had a criminal history whilst the other 30% were merely 'good' people who were caught up and who have, by being so, have damaged their community and their own lives. The problem is of course that we all have the potential to make the wrong choices (I still call that sin) and within even the best of us is that small voice that urges us on when rational thinking cries out to us to 'Stop!'.

So I have to agree with Ken Clarke in that the way we deal with criminal acts not only appears ineffective but obviously is. Whilst Labour (and didn't they they do such a good job in so many areas when they held power?) point to Clarke's comments being merely financially motivated I think the man has a point. The point of a penal system is to convict and work towards the person not reoffending (that's why some like capital punishment I guess). We need to change the way the person acts and this isn't done by rewarding bad behaviour - hence the call by many that those who are convicted should lose benefits and be ejected from social housing.

If we take the marginalised and marginalise them further how can we hope to see them inculturated?

If we take the 'have nots' and make them such that they have less how do you expect them to respond?

But if we take the ignorant and educate them, the excluded and include them, the one dimensional lives and set them free surely we will see the people, their families, their homes, their communities also change.

The problem is that there is a fine line between doing those things and being seen to reward those who live outside of our society. The problem is that to do so is costly in terms of energy, effort, societal will and (as always) financially.

But the cost to our society is surely greater if we don't do this?

This is surely the Christian basis of our dealings with wrongdoers - we take them and convict them of their wrongdoing and educate them such that they become transformed by the renewing of their mind. And for for those who won't be - then we have the full force of law and the security of removing them from the society that they so corrupt and damage.

Pax

UK Riots

Listened to an interesting news piece on London riots. French expert explained how the British had such a wide division between rich and poor, unlike egalitarian France, and that this was the root of our problems. The French merely rioted as part of the process of exercising their rights!

The American was scared that the break down of law and order would ruin the Olympics and said that in America things would have been dealt with in a more effective way to prevent such things.

The British voice thought that we should look at parenting and visit punishment on parents and the whole family. They took the line, "If we hurt them all they will police their own!"

The politician pointed to our 'Dunkirk spirit' and applauded the nation for its response with 'tea, sympathy and brooms'

Seems that's it sorted them!!!

Pax

UK Riots - not bookish sorts

I was quite surprised by one of the BBC's accounts of the looting of shops in that, 'Looters cleared the stock of Currys, Claire's Accessories & Phones4U, nearby Waterstone's was left 'without a scratch'!"

Seems that earrings, mobiles, White goods and electronic consumer goods define those who seek to engage in out of hours shopping (AKA looting). So it seems that the assessments of the experts in that those who are doing the stealing are an educated and marginalised unemployed bunch of the poorest in our nation. So, taking into account the views of others:

• if we remove those who are caught from social housing, remove their housing benefits and take away all and any other benefits they might receive - how fo we address the issues of this underclass?

• if they have nowhere to live and no income, how will they get the money to live other than by theft (for they will become untouchables and uneanted) and do the response fuels the very acts that we condn.

• what lessons will the children of the new underclass learn? Having seen the way other
marginalised groups (taking as a 'for example' the case of Tinker/Traveller families) are received and the way they live within communities, it seems that neither side will see anything that enhances, or remedies, the situation!

This is not about underclasses but about thriving classes and we need some joined up, literate and balanced responses, notify 'flogging, jailing, or whatever'

Pax

postscript

Been thinking and praying things through and wonder how we touch those who engage in rioting and other anti-social acts both on terms of punishment and Christian endeavour?

Should we worry at how the French see us?

In a recent article in the Daily Torygraph (26th April 2011), Andrew Gilligan, on the issue of terrorism quotes a French official as claiming that Britain is , "The Pakistan of the West," in that we are incubator, entrepot and exporter of islamic radicalism.

Now, I neither deny nor defend the comments, for they are undeniable and without defence, but I do have to admit that I take exception to the being labelled thus by a blessed Frenchman (or even a Frenchwoman, nothing sexist about me!). Having someone from the same nation that closes borders to prevent the ingress of Tunisians (isn't that a former French protectorate or was I sleeping in geog. lessons?). The same nation that takes immigrants from other places and then almost assists them to get on the crossings to the UK because it solves the French immigration (and their own terrorism) problems (and gives them someone to point the finger at, as they do)? The same nation that served soldiers from their North African territories smaller portions and paid them less during the war and gave them a pretty non-existent pension after it (Gurkha anyone)? The same nation that discriminates and crowds into ghettoes those from former colonies, treating them abysmally as second-class citizens?

Can I suggest that before the French decide to lecture anyone about immigration and fostering terrorism, that they take a look in their own mirrors, for I assume they will see nothing but closed-minded bigots and fools. I would love them to suspend the Shengen agreement and do something about the traffic that flows (as quickly as possible) through France to end up on our shores, not to protect the French, but the British.

Sadly those, we have people who are just as foolish as the french on this side of the puddle too! These are the people who see terrorism behind every dark skin and in possession of the Koran. The problem is that we have imported many of our problems from many other places and now indeed do have a radicalised and potentially unsafe minority within our shores. The key here is education and engagement. Not with the EDL, BNP or the Daily Fascist readers and foolish men like Jones and Sapp but with people who are moderate and intelligent.

We need to ask what drives young men and women to become radicalised. What it is that takes a Christian (albleit a nominal Christian) and turns him or her into a Muslim who is willing to die for their faith (Blimey, I'd be happy of I could get them to join and come on a Sunday evening, so what's the key?)?

Where there is acquiescence on the part of the state, incompetence on the part of the intelligence services and funding of those who might otherwise be enemies of the 'hand that feeds them', then (intelligent, balanced and rational) action is required. But in saying this can I recommend a couple of films for your consideration.

The first is a war film, "Days of Glory" (Director: Rachid Bouchareb),

The second, an excellent apologetic for the secular Muslim, "My Name is Khan' (Director: Karan Johar).

I have more, but these will do for starters. We need to consider the integrity and actions of others when considering this issue. That some will misrepresent any faith for their own evil (financial, political or social) is nothing new, but accepting it is not, and never has been, an option.

We need to pray, dialogue and be the difference in this area - not condemn and solidify the lines that might currently only be drawn in chalk, before they are:

Get the picture?

Pax