What do you do with people like this?

GreeBo

Do you the children in your second scenario are a larger group than the other ones?

I'd have to say I believe it to be the tiniest of minorities.

One eyed Jack

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you the children in your second scenario are a larger group than the other ones?

I'd have to say I believe it to be the tiniest of minorities.

That's really my point - that we generally believe people from more affluent, well-educated backgrounds couldn't possibly be as dysfunctional as people who come from less affluent and less well-educated backgrounds, and yet the reality is that they are.

It's difficult to put figures on it because again it's entirely dependent upon context, but anti-social behaviour is by no means limited to adults who came from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Wealthier people just happen to be able to afford better education is all, and they can afford better lawyers.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do see your point, I just don't agree with it, and thankfully too for society we don't just lock people up without any chance to justify their actions. That's totalitarianism you're arguing for, not justice, and it has never led to a harmonious society.

So putting violent criminals in jail (assuming it's proven before a jury that they did indeed engage in violence) is "totalitarianism"? That's just bizarre.

Depends upon how you define ideas like scumbags, and doing shìtty things to other people.

Being violent and abusive towards members of the public, and committing acts of violent vandalism makes one a scumbag. There are literally no circumstances under which it does not make one a scumbag.

Like I said previously, there's two sides to that story, and we're only seeing one side in that video from the perspective of the people who were recording it and encouraging her behaviour.

It's irrelevant. Even if she had evidence that the person who owned that shop was literally Satan himself in human form, it still wouldn't justify vandalism and violent behaviour in public. Nothing ever justifies vandalism or violent behaviour in public.

They're as bad as each other IMO, but I wouldn't go so far as to suggest anyone should be locked up and their children taken away from them. There's nowhere suitable for children in State care as it stands, and there are plenty of parents who would fail your parental standards test, so finding places for them too would place quite a burden on an already overstretched judicial system.

So that means that anyone who commits a violent crime should get away with it just because they have kids? Incredible get out of jail free card you're handing to the scumbags of this world there.

In short HP your vision is just totally unrealistic, impractical, unworkable and above all - simply would not lead to the outcomes for society that you imagine it should. That's already been demonstrated in the past, so what could possibly have you imagine it would work any better now? That's what I don't understand. We've been there already, it didn't work. It was a blight on Irish society and it's something the scumbags who perpetuated it should be ashamed of, yet still to this day they go largely unpunished, and you would support the State wielding that sort of power over people again?

I don't use the phrase often but that would be the very definition of a Nanny State.

In everything you're writing, you're ignoring the fact that the woman in the video is a violent criminal. That's the single most important fact in this whole argument and you're acting as if it's not relevant. It's like arguing that a building shouldn't be demolished because tons of people live in it and have nowhere to go, despite the central fact that it is of dangerous construction and a fire hazard - think Priory Hall.

My view on this is extremely straightforward: Violent criminals should be tried and subject to custodial sentences for the crime of committing acts of violence against members of the public and their property. That's it. The whys, wheres, hows and whos are irrelevant. Violence is a crime, and criminals are supposed to face justice in a civilised country.

skylight1987

this is proof that some men would get up on a gust of wind .what kind of a man would procreate with that woman .