This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

[Gwylan]

Build more prisons, taxes go up, crime goes down, insurance and security costs go down, repairing damage and graffitti costs go down, privatise prisons taxes go down.

Investment in lower crime ridden areas goes up, unemployment goes down, crime goes down. Quality of life goes up, Policing becomes more focused and crime falls or fewer police needed so taxes go down again.


Who suffers other than criminals?

Sounds nice in theory; the problem is that prison is a pretty ineffective weapon in the fight against crime. It works when the criminals are still in prison but what when they come out?

Reoffending rates are very high, according to the Prison Reform Trust, 67% of prisoners re-offend within in two years, in 1995 (when a get-tough prison policy was introduced, the reoffending rate was 56%). So unless you keep people in prison for massively long sentences, the crime rate will stubbornly refuse to go down.

You should learn from history: punishment in the 18th and early 19th century was savage: people were hanged or transported for minor thefts yet crime stubbornly refused to go away. These days one could walk from one end of London to another with little chance of being attacked, something that would have been impossible 200 years ago.

 

[looney]

I have learn't from history. Under Michael Howard as Home secretary and in the US under Zero Tolerance Prison populations went up and crime went down.

Of Course the left threw a hissy fit as its one of the clearest policies were actions soon yeild results.


Rehabilitation of offenders is a good idea but thats not exactly the topic here.

 

[Gwylan]

I have learn't from history. Under Michael Howard as Home secretary and in the US under Zero Tolerance Prison populations went up and crime went down.

Of Course the left threw a hissy fit as its one of the clearest policies were actions soon yeild results.

Not true: the labour government continued Howard's policy and the prison population continued to rise (and the crime rate continues to fall).

I don't doubt that the crime rate will go down if you send more people to prison, it won't eradicate it all (which you seemed to imply) and it's certainly an expensive way of treating the problem.

Still, I'm glad to see you adopting a high tax and high public spending policy, looney, we'll make a leftie out of you yet.

 

[looney]

Not true.

The crime rate is rising(Standardise figures) and labour have liberalised the CJS in so many ways.

Neither did I say or imply it would irradicate all crime. The exra cost is more than ofset in the short medium and/or long term by what I said in my earlier post.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

I have learn't from history. Under Michael Howard as Home secretary and in the US under Zero Tolerance Prison populations went up and crime went down.

Of Course the left threw a hissy fit as its one of the clearest policies were actions soon yeild results.


Rehabilitation of offenders is a good idea but thats not exactly the topic here.

The problem with the zero tolerence policy is the evidence doesn't support it as the cause of the drop in the crime rate

In New York crime rates were dropping before the policy was brought in, in fact crime rates were dropping all over the states. Statistical analysis shows zero-tolerence had little if any effect and indeed when the person responsible in New York, Police Chief Bratton was employed in LA he was unable to replicate the results.

 

[looney]

Were ever its implemented it works. I dont see why your arguing its about as statistacly clear cut as possible.

http://www.reform.co.uk/website/crime/factfile.aspx

There exist two principal methods for measuring crime in England & Wales: police recorded crime and the British Crime Survey.



The British Crime Survey (BCS) shows that a trend of falling crime began around 1995 following the introduction of tougher sentences. The rate of fall of crime has slowed sharply since 2001-02. In 2004-05 the BCS recorded 10.6 million crimes.



Police recorded crime also fell after 1995, but has risen steadily since 1998-99. In 2003-04, the police recorded 5.9 million crimes. Recorded crime is ten times higher than it was in the 1950s.



Other international comparisons exist which measure the crime rate. According to the latest (2001) International Victims of Crime Survey (ICVS), produced by the UN, only Australians were more likely to be victims of crime than people in England and Wales.



According to Home Office figures, England & Wales have the highest crime rate in the EU 15 other than Sweden.



ZERO TOLERANCE POLICING



Between 1993 and 2001, following the introduction of zero tolerance style policing, crime in New York fell by 62 per cent.



Ray Mallon has also achieved sharp reductions in crime through zero tolerance policing. As a senior police officer in Hartlepool, he cut crime by 27 per cent in two years. As a senior police officer in Middlesbrough, he reduced crime by 20 per cent in nine months. As independent Mayor of Middlesbrough, he has reduced crime by 15 per cent in one year.



EFFECT OF IMPRISONMENT ON CRIME RATES



A comparative study of the crime rates of US and England between 1981 and 1996, carried by Prof David Farrington of Cambridge University, showed that as the risk of being imprisoned rose in the US, the crime rate fell. Conversely, as the risk of being imprisoned fell in England and Wales during the same time period, the crime rate increased.



In England and Wales, just 12 people are imprisoned for every 1,000 recorded crimes. In Spain, the number is 48, and in Ireland it is 33. These countries have far lower crime rates. Countries that imprison a higher number of offenders have lower rates of crime.



In New York State, policing reforms were preceded by stricter sentencing and an expansion of the prison population. The total prison population grew from 123 prisoners per 100,000 population in 1980, to a peak of 400 in 1999.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

If we keep to the argument of zero tolerence ,which was the issue i was addressing the evidence proves that it is irrelevant in tackling crime.

You have fallen into the elemental trap of assuming that because their is a correlation between two things that one must be the cause of the other, very surprising for someone who claims to be a trained economist.

When the New York evidence is compared statistically against other US cities in the same period and other factors are taken out of the equation (yes - longer prison sentences reduce crime , and higher police numbers too) then it can be shown that the zero tolerence policy had absolutley no effect on the crime rate.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Why dont we take peadophiles ( or peadiatricians if you live in Portsmouth ) and make them serve the sentances they are given, without parole.

Where I live, I know of a category one case who lives in the community and although social services know of it, they will not move him for fear of breaching his human rights. Where are the human rights of the children who live in my area?

 

[WATFORD O]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/5109518.stm

Should be castrated fuckin cnunts

Should NEVER adopt.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Re: Re: This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

Should NEVER adopt.

I know a gay couple, who are the most loving and caring couple you could ever meet. Should they wish to adopt, they would make excellent parents, probably a damn site better parents than many that I have come accross when I was a school govenor.

Here we go again, tarring everyone with the same brush.

easy pickings isn't it

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Re: Re: Re: This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

I know a gay couple, who are the most loving and caring couple you could ever meet. Should they wish to adopt, they would make excellent parents, probably a damn site better parents than many that I have come accross when I was a school govenor.

Here we go again, tarring everyone with the same brush.

easy pickings isn't it

Very true Dave.

NSC was pretty much split when this case first came to light.
Foster Caring Poll

 

[WATFORD O]

Re: Re: Re: This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

I know a gay couple, who are the most loving and caring couple you could ever meet. Should they wish to adopt, they would make excellent parents, probably a damn site better parents than many that I have come accross when I was a school govenor.

Here we go again, tarring everyone with the same brush.

easy pickings isn't it

Tarring everyone with the same brush? Didnt you just do that only with a different spin??

 

[Dave the OAP]

No why?

I said many...not all as you intimated in your post!

 

[NMH]

Re: Re: Re: This wont help the sausage jockeys who want to adopt!

I know a gay couple, who are the most loving and caring couple you could ever meet. Should they wish to adopt, they would make excellent parents, probably a damn site better parents than many that I have come accross when I was a school govenor.

Here we go again, tarring everyone with the same brush.

easy pickings isn't it

Quite right, if a mother cat can bring up a duckling, then why not put a baby hippo with a loving wart-hog family, a rabbit with a dog litter etc.?

Of course, the rabbit will probably always be barking.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

Why dont we take peadophiles ( or peadiatricians if you live in Portsmouth ) and make them serve the sentances they are given, without parole.

Where I live, I know of a category one case who lives in the community and although social services know of it, they will not move him for fear of breaching his human rights. Where are the human rights of the children who live in my area?

Good point,I'd go a step further and use the evil scum for medical experimentation,thus also keeping the animal rights lobby happy.

 

[Napper]

shouldnt be allowed to adopt , simple as

 

[Dave the OAP]

shouldnt be allowed to adopt , simple as

why?

 

[Napper]

why?

Because to adopt you can create the perfect scenario for a healthy balanced up bringing. To do this you choose the ideal proven tried and tested route of loving mother + loving father . No need for these experiments and risks . 2 men can't reproduce + they chose this way so I dont see it's right that they interfere with nature and have something they were not born to have. If they somehow can reproduce themselves in the future then good luck to them , until that point then it should stay as a loving mother and a loving father.

 

[Jerryatric]

shouldnt be allowed to adopt , simple as

I agree entirely; shouldn't be allowed to foster either.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

2 men can't reproduce + they chose this way so I dont see it's right that they interfere with nature and have something they were not born to have. If they somehow can reproduce themselves in the future then good luck to them , until that point then it should stay as a loving mother and a loving father.

There is no evidence that homosexuality is a choice. If you are going down the route of intefering with nature what about heterosexual couples that can't have children and use IVF?

I am sure, given the choice, the multitude of children that are stuck in childrens homes and all the children that are waiting to be adopted would opt for a homosexual couple over being shipped from foster home to foster home with no sense of stability.