Racism is not the problem

Biffa Bacon

People seem to think that the best response to the murder of that Chinese student this week is to go on anti-racism marches and call for the government to launch an anti-racism campaign. Wrong. When are people going to learn that the problem is not racism. The problem is knackers. That man was not attacked because he was Chinese. He was attacked because the perpetrators were knackers. I witnessed some knackers on the bus today abusing some Chinese people. The problem was they were also abusing other passengers too. So what are all the anti-racism campaigns in the world going to do? Knackers are not going to stop attacking foreigners even if they have been "re-educated". They will keep on attacking them because that's what knackers do. The challenge for our society is not to eliminate racism but to eliminate knackers.

Boston

So an anti knacker campaign is in order then

actually i agree, the goverment,(as in every one we have ever had) never seem to want to face the real causes of crime in ireland. for years we didnt have a drug problem, or so we were told, then we did but it was only a cuple of people getting it from god know were, then they admitted, years after these gangs were protected by contacts that we do in fact have a organized crime problem.

I think this is the same, o know we dont have a crime problem in ireland, just some racists that are causing the whole problem

seamus

I can see this lasting long....:rolleyes: Racism is a huge problem in Ireland, and yes knackers, scumbags whatever you want to call them do attack everyone for no reason, but all types of people are racist. I went to Terenure College (****ehole) and I know plenty of people from Blackrock college. These are two 'respectable' schools but plenty of these people are racist and I know some of them who have taunted foreigners and then got in fights over it. It's not something completely isolated to knackers. Either is attacks and stuff in general. What about that poor git killed outside Anabels? Him and the people who killed him were neither knackers nor of different ethnicity.

Broad, sweeping statements are normally not appreciated on Politics

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The challenge for our society is not to eliminate racism but to eliminate knackers.

Your "Final Solution"?

By "knackers" do you mean members of the Travelling community or do you mean out-of-control youngsters from primarily socially- and economically-deprived, working class, urban areas?

The problems are numerous, the solutions must also be.

Biffa Bacon

First of all, I should be clear. Knackers are, as Victor suggested, "out-of-control youngsters from primarily socially- and economically-deprived, working class, urban areas" and not members of the Travelling community, although the two are not mutually exclusive. And although seamus is right, this sort of behaviour is not confined to knackers, I believe it is largely perpetrated by them.

Anyway it's not that important what you call them as long as you deal with the problem. My "final solution" is pretty revolutionary, it's called *gasp* law enforcement. If people break the law they should be punished. Knackers have gotten away with it for too long in this country.

One final thing:

Broad, sweeping statements are normally not appreciated on Politics

Unless it's about Americans?

Ri-ra

Biffa: your response is a difficult one to understand. You seem to want to suggest that there is no racism in Ireland, and that the simple problem has a simple solution: what you call "law enforcement." To say that's it's just scumbags causing agro minimizes a trend that should be of concern to all Irish people (immigrant or otherwise): Ireland has a racism problem, fullstop.

It's not a thing that most Irish people, with all the crap we've been told about our "hospitality," like to hear. We seem to be uncomfortable that one of the most cherished myths about ourselves is a big pile of crap. That is why we tell ourselves that "it's just knackers causing trouble."

The real question is *why* do you think the scumbags pick on different ethnic minorities? What about the myth that they are entitled to more than the Irish on social welfare? Or that such a huge amount of immigrant babies are being born in Irish hospitals? There's a huge litany of these types of myths, and they have only one goal: to foster the hatred of visible minorities.

And if we hate them, is there any wonder when they start to hate us?

I think that Victor's reference to your "final solution" intended a more triumph of the will ring to it.

Sand

Double post:(

Sand

Biffa is correct when he states that law enforcement is the only real necessity for preventing racial violence. As he says racism is just another exscuse violent people use to justify their violence - People have got into fights over the silliest of things from somebodys girlfriend paying too much attention to another guy to somebody looking at them "funny". Seamus mentioned an example himself.

There is no realistic solution apart from a crack down on violent thugs - this is hard to do as many of these fine upstanding young men and women are quite young, there arent places to hold them and everybody seems to want an exscuse to let them off. Given the difficult and long term challenge provided by that situation Im sure the political response will be to pass some feel good anti-racism laws with minimal effect on violence against just about anybody. At least it will get the lobbiests of the politicians back and let them go to the polls as the Good Guys.

As regards the myths Ri Ra is correct, but scumbags will pick on anyone whose different or looks out of place - and thus weak. Are we to be surprised when they pick on ethnic minorities?

DadaKopf

That sort of crime, in this instance, isn't a race crime. And knackers aren't intrinsically like that, which Biffa Bacon seems to suggest (even if he may be taking the pi$$).

Knackers are pretty violent. A few friends of mine who were walking home at about 5pm in Drumcondra were pelted with stones by little knacker kids recently - these were 8 year olds.

The way I see this kind of violence is certainly socio-economic. Such violence is just one kind of expression of internalised anger/frustration at their economic situation. There are external, objective factors causing this and it's perpetuated in part by things such as education, income, urban environment, others' attitudes/prejudices and governmental policy but also a general feeling of being hard done by.

These external factors have become internalised by the various communities so that it takes on a habitual, cultural nature. Chances are a kid brought up in Ballymun will take on his parents' and contemporaries' traits and attitudes and will repeat that behaviour.

The problem is both instutional and social - they're interlinked. This whole relationship results in a different set of values and social rules in one area, compared with someone of a different area. A person from the other culture would find the other's values and attudes alien and unacceptable. Needless to say, throwing rocks at people for fun is great for the kids but is perceived as aggressive and unacceptable to the person on the receiving end.

It's most certainly a sign of the degree of division in Irish society but of course there is no excuse for a crime of this nature. The law is the law. Of course, what the government should start doing is stop engaging in meaningless gesture politics and actually start doing something to bridge this gap. They simply haven't responded quickly enough. The issue is legislative, economic and social - all these issues must be addressed. However, I reckon the deep embeddedness of everyone's value system is a tough thing to overcome. I can't ever stop having middle class values and attitudes just like a knacker can't really stop being a knacker. But violence is violence, and crime is crime and there are no excuses for that across the board.

Biffa Bacon

"Scumbags causing agro" doesn't seem to me to be minimising anything, I think that's pretty serious. And of course some Irish people are racist but when it manifests itself in extreme violence as it did in this case then it needs to be tackled through effective law-enforcement, not protest marches and re-education.

As for the socio-economic forces that might lead to anti-social behaviour, to me they are irrelevant. It doesn't matter why someone is acting like a knacker, it only matters that they are acting like a knacker. If you want to improve the social or economic conditions of whatever section of society then by all means do so, if your measures are intrinsically good in themselves. But it is no substitute for proper law enforcement. I also reject the notion as DadaKopf says that "the deep embeddedness of everyone's value system is a tough thing to overcome. I can't ever stop having middle class values and attitudes just like a knacker can't really stop being a knacker". Being a knacker is not about your values or attitudes, it is about your actions.

As to what to do with these people, I believe that a punitive labour programme would be a cheap and effective means of punishment. Make them clean the streets or parks. No prison space is needed, they would not be associating with more violent criminals and they would be much more likely to be punished.

DadaKopf

And what motivates actions?

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by DadaKopf
And what motivates actions?

For the purposes of law enforcement, it's irrelevant. You commit a crime, you must be punished.

On a different note, why has the text suddenly gone all small on me?

DadaKopf

That's an over-simplistic attitude. I accept, wholeheartedly, your insistence that the law be abided by but put youself in a knacker's shoes. How would you react if some Garda came up to you and arrested you for the 50th time? What sort of rationalisation would you come up with?

It's really very easy for someone like me (I'm not making any assumptions about anyone else on the board) to insist on the enforcement the law but this is quite something different from someone like Liam 'bloody' Lawlor. There are patterns underlying knackers' actions that have to be addressed - these are fundamentally institutional, economic and socio-psychological. You could argue that because Liam Lawlor has a higher degree of freedom, due to his wealth and social mobility, he is not subject to the same factors that produce anti-social behaviour. Put more simply: there are concrete reasons for what you term knacker behaviour. A slap on the wrist of a repeat offender isn't going to make it go away. It's that simple - and that complicated.

To insist on not wanting to understand the reasons behind knacker behaviour is to mirror the very prejudicial and racist attitudes you're condemning.

I'd re-assess your position if I were you.

Sand

Assuming the law is being followed whether youre getting arrested the 1st or 50th time (career scumbag?) makes little or no difference. Either you did the crime (thus you cant feel too wronged) or you didnt (and assuming the courts are a fair system youll get off), either way the police believe theyve enough evidence to suggest you did and its up to a court after that to decide the truth of the matter.

Socio-Economic conditions factor into scumbag behaviour- but they dont explain why some people living in these conditions act like scumbags and why some dont, and why some work that bit harder to get ahead. I think thats what Biffa meant when he said being a knacker is about your actions.

JustHalf

The title is right. Racism is not the problem. The problem is people who think it's okay to kill or beat the crap out people.

DadaKopf

Socio-Economic conditions factor into scumbag behaviour- but they dont explain why some people living in these conditions act like scumbags and why some dont, and why some work that bit harder to get ahead. I think thats what Biffa meant when he said being a knacker is about your actions.

You're right in saying, of course, that just because you're a 'knacker', you're not necessarily going to cause anti-social behaviour. Very much depends on socio-economic factors but also on, as I mentioned, socio-psychological factors. The latter is what I see as a twofold view of the 'self' - my 'self' doesn't develop in isolation and my psychological makeup isn't caused and determined only by external conditions. It's a combination of both.

It is actually possible for two knackers who are living side-by-side for one to become a scumbag and kill someone and the other to graduate from the Harvard business school.

It seems as if there are two views in this thread. One is that knackers are just knackers and are prone to being violent scumbags - which paints them all the same colour and fobs off the issue, it assumes they're intrinsically scumbags. The other is that each knacker (person of a low socio-economic environment) is an individual whose psychology is responsible for their behaviour. The first view points towards the general institutionally formed condition of being poor and being a knacker; the second tends to disregard the socio-economic factors so that it's all down to the individual.

The latter removes most of the responsibility of the state to deal with this problem on an institutional level; the former view removes the responsibility of society at large to deal with it. Clearly, the situation involves both[/i view points. There are institutional reasons for scumbag behaviour as are there psychological reasons. Both are intimately intertwined.

Though the law is the law, it's just too simple to say "obey the law" and expect people to not resent it, as Sand here has suggested. Even Liam Lawlor resents it. The reaction to external coercion is generally seen the same way by everyone - someone else telling them what to do against their wishes (regardless of the reasons behind the prosecution). The 'legalist' frame of mind, I think, it an overly simplistic state of mind. I also find it an arrogant state of mind. It's a view that cuts off any possibility of understanding the 'other'. And don't forget, the pigs treat the knacks with just as much hostility. It's not so one-sided and simplistic is it?

Biffa Bacon

It is actually possible for two knackers who are living side-by-side for one to become a scumbag and kill someone and the other to graduate from the Harvard business school.

First of all. let's get this straight: being a knacker is only about your actions. The guy who goes to Harvard is therefore not a knacker.

How would you react if some Garda came up to you and arrested you for the 50th time? What sort of rationalisation would you come up with?

I'd say, hang on, that's 50 times I've been arrested now, maybe I should stop being a knacker.

There are patterns underlying knackers' actions that have to be addressed - these are fundamentally institutional, economic and socio-psychological.

As I've said, if you want to address these institutional, economic and socio-psychological problems you should do so if it is inherently right to do so, not as a substitute for law enforcement.

Put more simply: there are concrete reasons for what you term knacker behaviour. A slap on the wrist of a repeat offender isn't going to make it go away. It's that simple - and that complicated.

This is the central issue: that the current punishment is not enough. I propose punitive labour schemes - judicial slavery if you will - as a means of punishing and deterring knacker behaviour.

To insist on not wanting to understand the reasons behind knacker behaviour is to mirror the very prejudicial and racist attitudes you're condemning.

Again, if some sections of society are experiencing economic or social deprivation then you should deal with that in whatever way you think is best. But that's a separate issue to law enforcement.

Ri-ra

Surely if you are indeed serious about "fighting crime" or "law enforcement" or whatever, you should be concerned with the conditions which give rise to crime as well? Otherwise all you've got is a police state: pigs with truncheons.

Are you telling us that all the Gardai and all the other workers who deal with these issues daily are wrong? I'd wager they know something about the situation...

Biffa Bacon

Surely if you are indeed serious about "fighting crime" or "law enforcement" or whatever, you should be concerned with the conditions which give rise to crime as well?

No, the conditions that give rise to crime are irrelevant in terms of law enforcement.

Are you telling us that all the Gardai and all the other workers who deal with these issues daily are wrong? I'd wager they know something about the situation...

Why, what are they saying?

DadaKopf

It's rediculous to talk of crime only "in terms of law enforcement". That's like trying to describe chips only in terms of tomato ketchup.

Like I said before, there are two points of view here:

1] Those bleeding heart liberals who place the root cause of crime on social conditions and put the blame on people at large, not the ones who cause the crimes - in this case, knackers.

2] Those conservatives who say it's entirely the fault of knackers and we non-knackers have nothing to do with them. Social conditions have nothing to do with their behaviour, it's all them.

The overwhelming truth of the situation is that it is a combination of both. It's rediculous to talk of crime purely in terms of socio-economic conditions and it's rediculous to talk of crime purely in terms of law enforcement.

The locus of responsibility is on us as much as it is on them. On social conditions/institutions as much as it is individual behaviour. I challenge anyone to come up with a more convincing level of analysis. Any more rudimentary level of analysis is myopic and crude and therefore incorrect.

Sand

Biffa isnt saying socio-economic deprivation shouldnt be combated- but hes saying it should be done on its own merits, not as a replacement for law enforcement - you two are a lot closer in position than you might think.

Cops arent social workers- it isnt up to them to deal with the socio-economic factors only to clean up the messes they leave. Politicians are responsible for encouraging economic development.

DadaKopf

My only point is that points 1 and 2 are two sides of the same coin. The police force is only one tool in a complex, interlinked strategy to deal with this behaviour. We are close in position but Biffa's and your attitude is too shallow - you simply can't separate the two issues. You can't nail together two planks of wood with your fist.

On another not, and a point that was mentioned earlier in the post, is that of the effectiveness of anti-racism marches. The view seemed to say that they're completely pointless. Not so. Once again, there are two divergent purposes to marches.

The first is the populist march which is best suited to political issues such as a change in the law or in relation to some form of legislation or institutional problem. These prove to be effective in varying degrees of success but such a march would not be effective in the case of racism.

The second kind of march is a community march. We've seen this kind of thing in communities infected with drugs where a sizeable portion of the community rally together to force dealers and addicts out. Community based marches are, in this case, an effective tool to combate racism - or at least known racists. It promotes another form of intolerance, yes, but in the interest of combating racism, this strategy is effective.

Needless to say, it shouldn't be led by the SWP.

The reason all of the above discussion is important is because it emphasises the public/private relationship of society. Allying public with government and law and private with community and the individual, it seems to me that the most viable strategy to combat racism, eradicate or at least minimise the amount of scobes who think it's ok to beat people up and to create the kind of society we all want is to realise the interdependent nature of socio-economic, legal and individualist aspects of everyday life.

Of course it's not wrong to deal with each of these aspects in their own terms (people have to specialise) but in order to actually effectively combat knacker behaviour, they have to work in unison. What's being hinted at in this thread is an overarching strategy at combating it and to deal with each of these aspects in isolation - to fail to coordinate them under an all-encompassing strategy is to miss the point.

Moreover, anyone who insists that the law is the paramount institution of justice and fair mediation should probably also keep in mind that the law isn't perfect. It, too, is a complex system of jurispridence that is formed in part by social change and political dealings. The law itself did not develop in isolation and hence it's not administered in isolation.

Wow, I better keep all this in mind when I start my jury duty at the end of this month.

Sand

I fail to see how law enforcement can take socio-economic factors into account, or to coordinate with them. At the end of the day they catch scumbags. Socio-Economic factors should have no bearing on law enforcements charging of or conviction of scumbags. Laws change as you say, but the actual need to enforce them on their own merits doesnt. Again Law enforcers dont decide what the laws are- and neither should they. I wish you the best of luck with jury duty - I just hope you examine the case based on the evidence and not on the accuseds socio-economic background.

On a related note to the murder of the chinese guy, Ireland on Sunday did a few pieces on racism in Ireland this sunday, inspired by the murder. One in particular, by Alannah Gallagher caught my attention as it proposed to "prove" the level of racism prevalent by dressing up as a muslim woman. Of course nobody said or did anything to her as she walked around so the whole article was pretty much her saying people were giving her dirty looks and how discriminated against she felt. How much of that was true, and how much of it was because she set out with the intention to prove Ireland is the next 1950s Alabama is up to the individual to decide.

Victor

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No, the conditions that give rise to crime are irrelevant in terms of law enforcement.

And what ever happened to that concept of 'justice'. Justice is sometimes more than law enforcement, sometimes less.

Also law enforcement isn't very useful without punishment, probation, restitution and so on.

Biffa Bacon

It's rediculous to talk of crime only "in terms of law enforcement".

I'm not talking about crime only in terms of law enforcement. I do not deny that certain factors lead people to commit crimes. What I am saying is that effective law enforcement can never be absent from society's response to crime.

The locus of responsibility is on us as much as it is on them.

I bear no responsibility whatsoever for the crimes others commit. The fact remains that the law is not being effectively enforced. Anti-racism marches are not going to change this.

seamus

IMO, at the root of all this are the concepts of right and wrong. People aren't born with an inherent sense of justness, or with a realization of good and evil. People who tend to be anti-social, or knackers tend to have a distorted view of what is right and wrong. As a good example of this was a guy who rang up Chris Barry (that show is great for people studies ) bragging about how he robbed people's houses. Everyone else said they'd report him, to which he relplied, 'I'd come over to your house and smash your head in if you squealed on me! What right do you have to go poking your nose in other people's business?'. He saw his 'business' as robbing other people, and could not be convinced however hard they tried, that what he was doing was wrong. He saw it as being right because it made him happy, and anyone else who got in his way was wrong, and therefore because he's playing by his own rules, he must be the law enforcer, ie the head smasher.

It doesn't help to punish these people. To them, the Gardai are the enemy, and are 'wrong', and hence imprisoning them only makes them more hating of the 'oppressive system' of which us 'normal' law abiding citizens are a part. Of course not all criminals have this view. Many are desperate, or have a drug addiction, or keep financial records from tribunals - these people are normally rehabilitated by a short stint in jail, it scares them, they know what is right and wrong, but were desperate enough to oppose there own morals for whatever reason.

It's the repeat offenders, though, the people who are in and out of the 'Joy every 6 months that need far more than a punishment. After all, other groups with this distorted view of justice are sometimes successfully rehabilitated - Alcoholics, abusive parents, drug addicts, etc. So, basically, what is needed is support and a decent rehabilitation program. Not just throw them in jail and leave them there for a few months everytime they do something wrong. It only aggravates matters.

Btw: I speak of 'right' and 'wrong' as they are defined in Irish Law. Of course everyone has different ideas of right and wrong, after all, they're only concepts, not facts

Biffa Bacon

It's the repeat offenders, though, the people who are in and out of the 'Joy every 6 months that need far more than a punishment.

This is exactly the problem, the punishment is not enough. Prison is too easy for them. They are allowed watch television, play pool, wear their own clothes etc. That to my mind is ridiculous. All violent criminals should be enslaved and made to work for the state. Particularly violent criminals should never be released from prison.

seamus

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

This is exactly the problem, the punishment is not enough. Prison is too easy for them. They are allowed watch television, play pool, wear their own clothes etc. That to my mind is ridiculous. All violent criminals should be enslaved and made to work for the state. Particularly violent criminals should never be released from prison.

And that is avoiding the issue. People who are repeatedly jailed aren't even given a chance of rehabilitation. They're fu<ked up in the head - not intentionally evil (most of the time). Do they not deserve a chance to function in 'normal' society? And don't say they were given a chance, 'cos you know damn well they weren't

Biffa Bacon

People who are repeatedly jailed aren't even given a chance of rehabilitation. They're fu<ked up in the head - not intentionally evil (most of the time). Do they not deserve a chance to function in 'normal' society? And don't say they were given a chance, 'cos you know damn well they weren't

I'm fascinated to hear how they weren't given a chance. How were they not?

seamus

fu<k it! I had a big reply written and this piece of **** computer messed up. :mad: I'll try reconstruct it..............

I understand where you're coming from, and yes, from a legal standpoint they are given a fair chance after the first time they are released from prison. But for the reasons I gave above, they don't take it. In prison, all they gain is more hatred for the 'system' and more skills to break its rules. They are lined up to commit more crimes before they are released. They aren't given a chance to lead a 'normal' life - they wouldn't even know how to go about it if they wanted to. That's the problem. Prison doesn't educate repeat offenders as to the benefits of a 'normal' life. Put simply, prison as we know it DOES NOT WORK. It works for some, but not for repeat offenders.

America's 3 strikes rule sounds good. Let's face it, you'd have to be stupid to risk committing a crime the third time. But thousands do. Every year. Why? They can't all be extraordinarily stupid.

People have agreed in this thread, that being a 'knacker' is mainly due to the way you were brought (dragged? ) up. Should we not then try to undo at least some of this damage instead of simply incarcerating and forgetting about them? Why should they pay because they are victims of something they had no control over? Fine they are 'scumbags' and I hate them as much as you, but we have to accept that traditional deterrents are useless against them. I would be happy to pay (thru tax obviously) for decent rehabilitation of repeat offenders. Everyone can add something to society, and everyone has a right to the chance to add something to society, however small.
Just my opinion.....:)

bonkey

I would appreciate it if people stopped using the term knacker in this discussion.

Its not about it being derogatory - its about the fact that it is an established (albeit derogatory) term to refer to a specific group of people other than who you are discussing here.

The topic is interesting and worth discussing, but lets be accurate about who we're talking about.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by seamus
I understand where you're coming from, and yes, from a legal standpoint they are given a fair chance after the first time they are released from prison.

Our criminal system is based more about punishment than rehabilitation. Its basic aim is to convince people that crime is not worthwhile, because of the fear of punishment. This approach has, historically, never worked.

Add to that the fact that so many prison sentences are drastically reduced due to overcrowding, and you have a punishment system which, for the vast majority of petty crime, isnt even a serious punishment.

Until people realise that for large numbers of offenders, punishment is not a deterrant, then our penal system can never defeat crime.

jc

Biffa Bacon

But for the reasons I gave above, they don't take it. In prison, all they gain is more hatred for the 'system' and more skills to break its rules.

I agree that the current prison system is not effective in preventing crime. But surely the answer is to reform the prison system rather than abandoning the notion of punishment altogether. I would argue that prisoners should be prevented from fraternising with each other, which would prevent the "school for crime" nature of prisons today.

Prison doesn't educate repeat offenders as to the benefits of a 'normal' life.

I'm all for giving prisoners an education, but they would still have to be punished for their crimes.

I would appreciate it if people stopped using the term knacker in this discussion.

There is no word in the English language that more perfectly sums up their nature, but OK.

Add to that the fact that so many prison sentences are drastically reduced due to overcrowding, and you have a punishment system which, for the vast majority of petty crime, isnt even a serious punishment.

Until people realise that for large numbers of offenders, punishment is not a deterrant, then our penal system can never defeat crime.

You've made a big leap here bonkey, from arguing that the prison system is not an appropriate means of punishing criminals, to concluding that punishment itself is not appropriate. I agree that the current prison system is not effective, but I believe it should be reformed rather than done away with.

I will make four suggestions:
1. Particularly violent criminals (e.g. rapists, murderers) should never be released from prison.
2. Criminals should not be allowed fraternise with each other in prison.
3. Lesser violent criminals (e.g. vandals, petty thieves) should be forced into punitive labour programs (e.g. cleaning the streets).
4. Those guilty of non-violent offences (e.g. white collar crime, drug dealing) should be given massive fines (proportional to income) instead of imprisoned.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

You've made a big leap here bonkey, from arguing that the prison system is not an appropriate means of punishing criminals, to concluding that punishment itself is not appropriate.

I distinguish between steps designed to punish, and steps designed to prevent reoffence, which I would term rehabilitation (except in the lifers/deaders cases where you remove the person from society permanently)

Punishment does not prevent reoffence. Period. There is no reliable model anywhere which shows otherwise.

I am not saying that punishment has no place. I am saying tha tpunishment without rehabilitation has never worked, does not work, and will not work for the forseeable future.

Yet, it is the basic underlying tenent how our system functions.

Sure, civil labour may be seen as some form of rehabilitation, but its not really. Its a more useful form of punishment. I dont know how to attempt rehab, I just know that we must make the attempt, because simply locking poeple up for a period of time will never prevent reoffence in any significant manner.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Add to that the fact that so many prison sentences are drastically reduced due to overcrowding, and you have a punishment system which, for the vast majority of petty crime, isnt even a serious punishment.

The reform of bail, the expansion of the courts system (Dublin alone now has at least 11 court buildings) and in particular the placing of remand courts in prisons, the extra spaces in the prison system at Castlerea, Midlands (Port Laoise 2) and Cloverhill (now the biggest in the service), mean that while there is still probably some over-crowding and prisoners do get remission, there is no more 'revolving door',

The Irish Prison Service website http://www.irishprisons.ie is currently not working

The Irish Courts Service http://www.courts.ie/

swiss

As bonkey points out, the current penal system fails insofar as it largely punishes felons but fails to rehabilitate them. In some cases, however, the 'scare' factor or fear of spending more time in prison is enough in itself to reform offenders. Clearly, however, given the current state of the prison system these - so called successes - are in a minority.

It is hard to balance an effective model that would provide enough of a deterrent to make all but the most hardened of criminals to think twice before committing offences, and satisfy our own sense of social justice. I believe that in theory our system of punishment can work well, but has been hamstrung for decades by a creaking prison system that necessitates a revolving door system. Compound this with (as Biffa Bacon mentioned) a "school for crime" ethos that has developed over the last few decades, we suddenly have a singularly unsuccessful method of 'rehabilitating' prisoners, as the 'punishment' of incarceration - which is intended to teach prisoners the consequences of their actions, instead teaches them new means to commit those crimes.

I think that a tougher, more rigorous approach needs to be taken in relation to the punishments made available to the courts. Penal labor - if practicable (if proper supervision could be guaranteed) - would be an effective means of punishment IMO. It would teach offenders that their anti-social behaviour is consequenced by more than a simple prison stint, as well as benefit society at large by their physical labour. This may not reside well with what others term 'bleeding heart social liberals' but I believe that a 'tough love' approach will benefit offenders more in the long term - when all other means of social benefit has failed to curb their anti-social behaviour.

The underlying social causes of this behaviour can then be addressed. Putting relief services in place becomes a less dangerous or laborious (or indeed futile) chore when the anti - social element that continually refuses to give these support mechanisms a chance are in the process of being punished for their violent actions.

Victor

Originally posted by swiss
Penal labor - if practicable (if proper supervision could be guaranteed) - would be an effective means of punishment IMO.

Nice in theory. However, there are concerns in the USA that prison-based companies just exploit this labour for excessive profit (or rather the system, to a degree the prisoners deserve a bit of exploitation).

Supervision outside prison can be expensive.

However, there are positive aspects. Apparently prisoners are tripping over each other to work in the kitchens in Mountjoy (mostly for the training, but it also creates a more positive daily regime and presumably it provides some benefits).

Breaking rocks and making post bags are hardly very constructive.

swiss

Originally posted by Victor:
Breaking rocks and making post bags are hardly very constructive

No, of course not. Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but the purpose of the labour intended to reform prisoners should (in theory) be constructive and rehabilitative - rather than oppressive and backbreaking. I would not like to envisage a prison system like that portrayed in Papillion (an excellent film w/ Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen). Labour that has both purpose and merit would be ideal, such as apprenticeship programmes for electricians/plumbers etc. At least inmates that participate in such a regime have a hope of having a life other than that of crime or poverty once they are readmitted to society.

As far as I can tell, in any justice system, the emphasis should not just be on the punishment of prisoners, but also on how they can be successfully rehabilitated. After all, unless a person is a 'lifer' and can look forward to spending the rest of their lives in prison each convict will re-enter society at some stage in their lives. It is therefore both advantageous to society and humane to the person in question to allow them the best opportunity to get their lives back on track during their incarceration - even if this means taking the aforementioned 'tough love' approach that many social liberals might object to.

The Gopher

My local town council,which from its nonsensical declarations is the laugh of the county,is seemingly very concerned about the refugee"problem".They claim they are perpetuating a crime wave,and one said that part of our town which must only be a square mile in all should be renamed Bucharest Heights.Lets just do a breakdown of figures of foreigners in the area.
Romanians-An old Romanian woman of about 60 who sells the big issue at the shops on a Saturday and another family[to be fare to the council the family probably burgled a relative of mine but sure theres an equal chance of a local burgling houses.
Chinese-One family,propeitors of a takeaway.
Italy-2 families in the food business.
Blacks-One family.
German-Perhaps 2 dozen in the country outside the town.
And a handful of French and English.Hardly Brixton,as the local council dubbed the area is it????Theres only about 1500 ppl inb the town for christs sake!And the foreigners must number 30 or 40 altogether.:rolleyes:

seamus

Originally posted by The Gopher

Blacks-One family.

Um, lol, what, are all people of african descent just to be thrown under one banner, lol? Maybe for the last few you could have just said 'A few Europeans' :)

The Gopher

Alright-if we want to be pedantic they could be Nigerian,Ghanian,Ivorian,Liberian,Senegalese,Gambian,Somali,Ethiopian,Malian,Guinean,Sudanese,South African,Namibian,Jamaican,Mixed,Congolese,Rwandan,Burundian,Tanzanian,Chadian,Gabonese,Zimbabwean,Zambian,Togolese,Beninese,Central African etc etc etcSatisfied????????

Sand

owned:)