a) What is “punishment” then?

b) As you are arguing that only police officers or victims of crime are qualified to have opinions on justice, I similarly assume that you make your comments on the prison system as someone with great experience of such institutions. Would I be correct?

Those people convicted of a crime must be punished, or else the state becomes a worthless playground where an underclass not only exists and thrives, but also multiplies until there is nothing left worth defending. The very concept that someone who resists arrest should be “told off for being a naughty boy” as you seem to advocate is laughable.

Try being a police officer, try actually seeing criminals and the long term damage they do to the victims of their actions and then look around the nice middle class living room and ask yourself more sensibly if this left wing liberal claptrap has any point except to ruin our country.

Prison is not punishment. Your ideas scare me in the idolatry you show for such malevolence.

My apologies for the many spelling mistakes: I appear to be suffering from Spellcheck dependency. In addition, my reference to the SOE officer which I mistakenly partially deleted should have said that he claimed to able to knock out two people before they drew their sidearms. What I hope to illustrate is that if a community has a few suitably trained men they can greatly assist in preventing violence by gangs and the fear it creates. Hopefully if people are less fearful they will be more willing to help those being attacked.

176.ukliberty. I think I remember reading an article in The Independent about a lecturer in Geography from King’s College, London who was very successful in reducing crime by altering the layout of estates . The LibDems claim success in reducing crime in Liverpool by making modest alterations to the design of estates. I think there is much opportunist crime and good design whether of cars, houses and neighbourhoods or people walking in a confident manner deters what I call the semi-professional criminal. As Wilde said ” I can resist everything apart from temptation”. Good design makes a pontential target less tempting to the semi-professional criminal. Obviously even he most advanced security systems will not deter the professional criminal i.e robberies such as the Brinks Matt , N.Ireland (£26M haul) and cash transfer station in Kent come to mind.

I have at no point claimed that socio-economic factors or architecture are ’causes’ of crime, I have at no point claimed we can prevent all crime, or all of a particular crime, by doing such-and-such a thing, and I think I’ve been pretty clear that it is the criminal who causes crime, that he ultimately bears responsibility.

What I’ve been talking about is risk, or probability, or likelihood. Can we reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed by doing things other than churn out more laws and assault our rights?

I think we can and that it’s well past time our beloved leaders looked at them.

And given that there has been more literature relating to architecture and crime control and prevention since the 70s, I suggest Matt doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

The preposterous idea that you should still act “hard” on people that it is no longer apt to be hard on, such as your notion of removing their rights regardless of individual circumstance, is what we’re railing against, not that you don’t want to release criminals with a pat on the back and a wad of money in their pockets.

There’s a chapter in Tim Harford’s book “The Logic Of Life” that deals with rationality and criminality. There’s a great deal of evidence that making crime more costly (more difficult, dangerous, or more likely to result in conviction) reduces the crime rate. One of the ways that crime can be made more difficult is to, for instance, restrict access to tower blocks – or build new apartments so that there are many windows looking out on the bike racks, or whatever. Surely this is not contraversial?

Yes, I remeber as a psychology undergrad reading research to the effect that children living on the 4th floor, or above of tower blocks had poorer outcomes than those below or not in tower blocks. It was suggestedf that this mey be due to increased isolation/no view/increased risk of burgulary, none of which really stand any kind of serious scrutiny. Most of this reasearch was done in the 1970s “It’s nurture not nature and we can prove it” decade, what it didn’t say was that the difference was small, and a far more significant marker was being in a single parent family or having a criminally inclined father. Because that wasn’t (and still isn’t) what the left (and most sociologists are of the left) wanted to hear, they focussed on the buildings and the layout of the estate, as if the people in them were entirely shaped by their environment.
Agreed most council estates are grim soullesss places, where few, given the choice would choose to live, but while that may attract crimianls through making crimal activity easier and detection/apprehension, harder, the net effect is that crime is simply comitted in a different place, not that it increases/decreases. I don’t believe that the physical environment is in any sense a “cause” of crime, people don’t suddently become criminals because of where they live.
It’s a little like blaming a car crash on faulty brakes when the driver is drunk and driving at 100mph around the wrong side of the M25.

It seems trivial to suggest that some layouts are going to make the actual act of crime easier to accomplish and get away with – such as allowing non-residents easy access to every floor of a block of flats – and that buildings that are ‘built safe’ are less likely to experience crime because crime becomes more difficult to carry out. It’s just another way, like higher expected sentences or detection rates, that makes crime less attractive to potential criminals.

I’m not saying that there is a large effect, and that we should concentrate on building security rather than detection, but to say that there is no effect at all is, frankly, barmy.

Pure mythology – if you control for the type of people in the estates then the alledged effect becomes insignificant. Fill a sink estate with yuppies and it will stop become a property hot spot, fill a leafy suburb with single parent families and it will become a no go area. People commit crimes, not buildings.

A simple truth that the soft left have never been able to grasp.

Once again, the attack by groups which I agree is more common , is in part because it is no longer considered cowardly. The saying “Pick on someone your own size ” does not appear relevant today. However, a group of 4 -5 muggers attacking a tough man would end up in 2-3 damaged muggers. In the Independent , there was an obituary for a fomer SOE Officer who boxed at university. In addition,my Father tells the story of being attcked by a group of muggers, one who kicked his colleague in the face. The gentleman apparently shooked his head , picked the mugger up nd smashed his head against a wall, rendering him unconscious. The muggers ran off. The gentlemen had boxed at heavy weight in the Army and fought in the Commandos in WW2 and was in his 50s when the assault took place. My Father who was also in his 50s, another WW2 veteran stood his ground as he was fit man who had boxed at light heavy weight. There was another article about a pensioner , in his 60s who stopped two buglars even though they were threatened him with a chisel. He arested them as he had been an Olympic weightlifter and wrestler in his youth. What about the two pensioners ; one who intervened during a robbery on a jewellers and the one who tried to arrest an armed robber at a bookmakers. In both cases, able bodies males , decades younger, did not assist the pensioners. I would raise the suggestion that there appears to be more of a willingness to intervene to catch criminals from those in their 60s to 80s then those in their teens to 30s.

I agree with you that the Police have actively persuaded people not to interevene which I believe has contributed to the problem. At times , I think the Police believe the greatest threat is for the public to consider them irrelevant to preventing crime. In the 60s to 80s , a community which successfuly police itself was a threat to the existance of the Police- why pay for something which is not needed?

I agree with you that alcohol and drugs contributes to much crime but once again people with the ability and will to stand up to those who are violent I believe will reduce crime and the fear of crime. A contribution to the fear of crime I believe, is the belief that people will not go to the assistance of those who are being attacked .The victim is on their own even if there are passers by . I do not believe that my comments will only assist in the reduction of violent crime , not totally stop it. Ultimately, I believe that prison is the last resort for the violent who cannot be rehabiliated .

If fewer people are prepared to “have a go” (I don’t think anyone’s ever measured it over time) that may also be because violence is more often perpetrated by groups on individuals rather than one-on-one and also of course the police advise us not to!

I have nothing against the kind of work that Ingle and people like him do. I simply think it is only ever going to be a small part of the solution. Of the “small percentage of males who are prepared to use violence” not all will be attracted to contact sport. And much of the good that the Ingles do may come from adopting a responsible attitude to drugs/alcohol – I have little doubt that he “lets go” of lads who – like Mike Tyson but without his skill – won’t deal with that part of their problem. And the (admittedly anecdotal) evidence is that drug and alcohol abuse is a factor in the overwhelming majority of incidents of criminal violence.

I think those who show violent attitudes would benefit from challenging their aggression through sports such as rugby, boxing or Judo or simpling undertaking a hard work. In the 19C , a labourer had to move 20T /day to earn a wage . Labourer who has worked for 5 days and then spent Saturday afternoon playing rugby would have channelled their energy and agression in a productive manner.

I am against compulsory military service and ASBOs. However , the saying ” The devil provides mischief for idle hands” is relevant. I consider the lack of arduous manual labour; clubs offering tough sports ( boxing , rugby and Judo come to mind); a lack of tough, strong and peaceful males who can act as role models and are willing to step in and prevent boisterous behaviour changing to agressive then criminal, is lacking. The way ASBOs are dished out is absurd. What many of the delinquent teen age males would benefit from, is a tough yet peaceful male saying to them firmly to go down to the boxing , judo or rugby club if they want to prove themselves physically not harassing a pensioner. This why Brendan Ingle has been so successful. There was very good article about the effectiveness of Ingle’s social work in the Guardian or Independent 10 or so years ago.

I think those who show violent attitudes would benefit from challenging their aggression through sports such as rugby, boxing or Judo or simpling undertaking a hard work. In the 19C , a labourer had to move 20T /day to earn a wage . Labourer who has worked for 5 days and then spent Saturday afternoon playing rugby would have channelled their energy and agression in a productive manner.

I am against compulsory military service and ASBOs. However , the saying ” The devil provides mischief for idle hands” is relevant. I consider the lack of arduous manual labour; clubs offering tough sports ( boxing , rugby and Judo come to mind); a lack of tough, strong and peaceful males who can act as role models and are willing to step in and prevent boisterous behaviour changing to agressive then criminal, is lacking. The way ASBOs are dished out is absurd. What many of the delinquent teen age males would benefit from, is a tough yet peaceful male saying to them firmly to go down to the boxing , judo or rugby club if they want to prove themselves physically not harassing a pensioner. This why Brendan Ingle has been so successful. There was very good article about the effectiveness of Ingle’s social work in the Guardian or Independent 10 or so years ago.

[156] Charlie, it was you who used “hard” and “soft” to describe society, not me – although I accept that the way I quoted you wasn’t as clear as it might have been. Where I think we differ is that you seem to regard violence as innate in males, and therefore in need of proper channelling through contact sport and military discipline – which leads me to wonder if you don’t see men of peace as lacking in manliness. Anyway, if you are right, all the world’s philosophical and religious systems are wrong on the point.

Those who clearly possess no capacity for revenge and who have no-one to act on their behalf must rely upon the good-will of strangers. They therefore face the very real prospect of slavery and death.

Compare away, just keep in mind it needs to be qualifies with the appropriate social and cultural changes that have been undertaken in the last three-quarters of a century. I’m not convinced as yet that your comparisons are qualified enough is all, though I do understand your sentiment.

“I think the number of cases where people have been murdered or in the case of the lady thrown onto a railway line; for confronting yobs, shows there is a problem.”

There are extremely few instances of these, and so to call them a problem is an exaggeration I feel. A concern, surely, but not yet a problem, thankfully. You’re right, people don’t brag about when they’re beat…this is why I can only take your claims with a pinch of salt. We don’t hear about any of the good community work done to calm down youths that are causing issues.

To me this is because we’re programmed to be alerted to the bad, the kids shouting and being anti-social. But when we confront something that is brewing do we realise what a good job we’ve done for the community? Probably not, we’re not programmed to think we have done anything abnormal there, nothing to strikingly get concerned about.

Therefore rather than saying hard or soft , I think it is more beneficial and clearer to be more precise about the exact conditions one is describing.

156. Lee Griffin. I think comparing today with the 1920s -1950s is not unreasonable as it is within living memory and I think we can learn from this period. I am not saying every guy was tough. What I am saying that after WW1 and WW2, there were far more many men who had undergone military training , boxed when young and were physically strong from arduous work and therefore were far better equipped to stand up to thugs. In addition, society was far more tolerant towards adults correcting delinquents.

I think the number of cases where people have been murdered or in the case of the lady thrown onto a railway line; for confronting yobs, shows there is a problem. In my experience people do not threaten violence if they think they would lose a confrontation. I have never heard of a thug boasting of how they were beaten in a fight.

I agree with you that communities are not the same as they were in the 20s and 50s

The whole point of the article is to propose a change in the law. We’re not discussing what is the current law, we’re discussing what the should be doing.

Indeed, sorry, went ‘off on one’ there…

151. Mike Killingworth. I do think the adjectives ” Hard ” or “Soft ” are approprite in describing society.

Care to say why, Charlie?

Of course it is, but locking people up for increasing amounts of time won’t deal with the real problem that causes teenage deaths either. it may keep people that *could* (not would) turn out to be career violent criminals (as if there is such a thing) locked away but it doesn’t stop the situation that fosters and generates youth crime does it? As I said, unless you lock up all kids you’re not going to solve the violent crime problem without rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in some of this liberal ideology we’re peddling

“Many people would now be scared of going up to gang of teenagers and telling them to stop littering or making a nuisance of themselves outside their homes.”

For example, on this, I think comparisons to the 1920′s to 50′s are fairly obtuse personally, a different political climate, the fall-out of two wars, a completely different situation when it comes to views on society, life aspirations, etc not to mention a complete lack of the rigorous statistical (by historical standards at least) development….it all adds up to not being able to compare what we are going through as a modern country with that time, it feels more than slightly false to try and force the comparison.

People these days are physical, they are the sort that can impose if they need to. The idea every guy was built and competent at defending themselves is not based on any fact here. While kids in the 1920′s and 50′s had any sense of conflict beaten out of them now they have as much right to be conflict causing shits as the “adults” that do so down the pub, or driving to work, the problem here is attitudes that need helping, but returning to a vindictive and abusive manner of instilling that isn’t a step forward.

Despite something like 1 or 2 cases a year, even if higher it’s only be a few more instances, of people getting beaten up or (tragically) killed for confronting youths…everyone believes that if they (with the community) try to sort out this problem that they will get knifed for it. It’s not the truth, it flies in the face of the stats and…it ignores that you never hear reports of when the guy on your street goes out to tell the kids making noise to shut up, bugger off, or he’ll be calling the police and they move on.

We’re fed one half of the story, and with that people have progressively become more reclussive and scared. NOT because they lack the ability to deal with it, but because they have been painted in to a corner by the media to believe that they can’t deal with it.

Over at himmelgarten’s cafe there’s an argument that we need to increase acceptance of these annoyances being criminal, when really they’re nothing more than civil in nature. Something does need to be done but it is breaking down this exaggeration that the kids are out to get us, empowering communities to combat truly anti-social behaviour, and regaining the sense of community that we did once have. I think if nothing else we can both agree that communities are not what they were in the 20′s to 50′s.