And now Jon Venables

[grrclark]

That's a harrowing tale Mel.  I think that what it highlights is that nothing is ever so simple as it first may seem.  In the example you give it is someone who appeared to be a good guy, even to those that were close to him, yet he was hiding a rotten core.

Sometimes we also see people who on the outside appear to be rotten and utterly worthless, but when the truth presents itself it is not nearly so cut and dried.

For that reason alone I am grateful we no longer have the death penalty in this country.  I would shed no tears for societies worst being despatched, but what has been discussed in this thread, in varying degrees of severity, is quite simply that the system gets it wrong and it gets it wrong regularly.

If we accept that the system gets in wrong in failing to deal with the bad guys adequately then we also have to accept that the system gets it wrong when judging the good guys.

The recent cases of the Met's woeful mishandling of rape cases where incontrovertible evidence proving the innocence of those charged with rape was either deliberately withheld or it was simply not considered as a result of incompetence should ring alarm bells for all of us, but as ever for those incapable of looking beyond the end of their own opinion will still scream 'hang 'em high' regardless.

Edited January 13, 2018 by grrclark

[12gauge82]

9 hours ago, grrclark said:

That's a harrowing tale Mel.  I think that what it highlights is that nothing is ever so simple as it first may seem.  In the example you give it is someone who appeared to be a good guy, even to those that were close to him, yet he was hiding a rotten core.

Sometimes we also see people who on the outside appear to be rotten and utterly worthless, but when the truth presents itself it is not nearly so cut and dried.

For that reason alone I am grateful we no longer have the death penalty in this country.  I would shed no tears for societies worst being despatched, but what has been discussed in this thread, in varying degrees of severity, is quite simply that the system gets it wrong and it gets it wrong regularly.

If we accept that the system gets in wrong in failing to deal with the bad guys adequately then we also have to accept that the system gets it wrong when judging the good guys.

The recent cases of the Met's woeful mishandling of rape cases where incontrovertible evidence proving the innocence of those charged with rape was either deliberately withheld or it was simply not considered as a result of incompetence should ring alarm bells for all of us, but as ever for those incapable of looking beyond the end of their own opinion will still scream 'hang 'em high' regardless.

I'm of the opinion we should blame the offenders for their offences rather than trying to make excuses for them, it's half the problem these days, there's no sense of personal responsibility and everything' always someone else's fault.

Thinking that you (please don't take offence i dont mean you personally) have the power or the knowledge to "save" everyone is naive at best and arrogant at worst but is insignificant when compared to the effects felt by the victims who are the ones who have to carry the can when henious crimes are carried out against them or their families after scum are released offence after offence after offence, chance after chance, the system does get it wrong, by not permanently locking the worst offenders up, well very rarely anyway. Do you think an often 60% reoffending rate within the first year of release is acceptable? (That figure will be lower depending on sentence length or more usually type of crime)

[old man]

35 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm of the opinion we should blame the offenders for their offences rather than trying to make excuses for them, it's half the problem these days, there's no sense of personal responsibility and everything' always someone else's fault.

Thinking that you (please don't take offence i dont mean you personally) have the power or the knowledge to "save" everyone is naive at best and arrogant at worst but is insignificant when compared to the effects felt by the victims who are the ones who have to carry the can when henious crimes are carried out against them or their families after scum are released offence after offence after offence, chance after chance, the system does get it wrong, by not permanently locking the worst offenders up, well very rarely anyway. Do you think an often 60% reoffending rate within the first year of release is acceptable? (That figure will be lower depending on sentence length or more usually type of crime)

Sadly I have to agree with you.

For the sake of society the attempts at rehabilitation for these people should be carried out, in my personal opinion where the failure rate is of no account to the population at large, ever?

[12gauge82]

24 minutes ago, old man said:

Sadly I have to agree with you.

For the sake of society the attempts at rehabilitation for these people should be carried out, in my personal opinion where the failure rate is of no account to the population at large, ever?

I don't usually like opinion polls as they are often wrong, it is however widely accepted that if there were a vote on capital punishment it would be voted back in for the very worst crimes, the government will obviously never have that referendum though.

[henry d]

46 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm of the opinion we should blame the offenders for their offences rather than trying to make excuses for them, it's half the problem these days, there's no sense of personal responsibility and everything' always someone else's fault.

Thinking that you (please don't take offence i dont mean you personally) have the power or the knowledge to "save" everyone is naive at best and arrogant at worst but is insignificant when compared to the effects felt by the victims who are the ones who have to carry the can when henious crimes are carried out against them or their families after scum are released offence after offence after offence, chance after chance, the system does get it wrong, by not permanently locking the worst offenders up, well very rarely anyway. Do you think an often 60% reoffending rate within the first year of release is acceptable? (That figure will be lower depending on sentence length or more usually type of crime)

I don`t think anyone is trying to remove the blame, however it is more about how do we stop these things happening in the first place, for me it is interventions at an early age, but poverty ignorance and greed play their part.

No-one can "save" another, the only person that can change themself is that person not anyone else. I have worked with YP who do not want someone to help them untangle their lives and have to stop working with them, that is their choice. Most however see that they are in danger of further problems (regarding school, relationships, family, police, social services...) and realise that they need guidance and then try to get back on track, but it isn`t easy.

Another story; Young male in Polmont (YOI Scotland) has got his life in order while inside, cooperates, gets education and skills for work and still does not look forward to going home. The reason is that he knows when he gets back to his parents flat there will be a coffee table covered with drugs and alcohol awaiting him, he now has to make a choice between his family and a life. If he rejects his family and does not go home he also has to spend his life looking over his shoulder, he will not have any support networks other than meagre ones from the state. I wouldn`t want to be making those choices as a teenager, would you? What happens if he cannot get a job and has no friends or family to help him? The story is similar for others; adult substance abuser gets straight inside and when released finds that the local dealer is the first to come knocking with a gift, "Just to say welcome back." Or after a time inside racking up debts to keep them in "the habit" they are released and have to pay their debt. These are just a few of the reasons why there is reoffending and some are just people who know no other thing than the life they had left behind a few months earlier, so the cycle repeats.

Answer; don`t know but we would have to throw a lot of money at it and that is political suicide, so it isn`t going to happen. Statutory youth work has just about died in E&W and is in terminal decline in Scotland, so early interventions and education are just about nil, jails are a laugh as the security is lax due to under funding, rehab is underfunded. Not a cheery picture is it, if it upsets people that there is too much crime and reoffending levels are too high, there are plenty of third sector agencies for people to volunteer with, you will get training etc, or we have to poke our councillors/MP/MSP with a stick and dig deep in our pockets.

Finally, as regards capital punishment, grrclark has it nailed in the thread at the top of the page.

[12gauge82]

13 minutes ago, henry d said:

I don`t think anyone is trying to remove the blame, however it is more about how do we stop these things happening in the first place, for me it is interventions at an early age, but poverty ignorance and greed play their part.

No-one can "save" another, the only person that can change themself is that person not anyone else. I have worked with YP who do not want someone to help them untangle their lives and have to stop working with them, that is their choice. Most however see that they are in danger of further problems (regarding school, relationships, family, police, social services...) and realise that they need guidance and then try to get back on track, but it isn`t easy.

Another story; Young male in Polmont (YOI Scotland) has got his life in order while inside, cooperates, gets education and skills for work and still does not look forward to going home. The reason is that he knows when he gets back to his parents flat there will be a coffee table covered with drugs and alcohol awaiting him, he now has to make a choice between his family and a life. If he rejects his family and does not go home he also has to spend his life looking over his shoulder, he will not have any support networks other than meagre ones from the state. I wouldn`t want to be making those choices as a teenager, would you? What happens if he cannot get a job and has no friends or family to help him? The story is similar for others; adult substance abuser gets straight inside and when released finds that the local dealer is the first to come knocking with a gift, "Just to say welcome back." Or after a time inside racking up debts to keep them in "the habit" they are released and have to pay their debt. These are just a few of the reasons why there is reoffending and some are just people who know no other thing than the life they had left behind a few months earlier, so the cycle repeats.

Answer; don`t know but we would have to throw a lot of money at it and that is political suicide, so it isn`t going to happen. Statutory youth work has just about died in E&W and is in terminal decline in Scotland, so early interventions and education are just about nil, jails are a laugh as the security is lax due to under funding, rehab is underfunded. Not a cheery picture is it, if it upsets people that there is too much crime and reoffending levels are too high, there are plenty of third sector agencies for people to volunteer with, you will get training etc, or we have to poke our councillors/MP/MSP with a stick and dig deep in our pockets.

Finally, as regards capital punishment, grrclark has it nailed in the thread at the top of the page.

Again another excellent post and only a few points where our opinions differ, the main point for me is that I beleive it's almost always too late by the time it's got that far, the people who are carrying out serious offending were already broken before they even hit 5 due to their upbringing, almost always due to their family circumstances, it's very sad, some people will pull themselves out of it with a helping hand, but by the time they're being locked up for serious offending, whether at 10 like Venables or 20 as a murder makes little difference, they're damaged goods and for the sake of society need removing.

For me rehabilitation should be spent on the young and worked mainly from schools before the serious offending starts, by the time they're locked up whether that's as a YP, YO, or adult it's usually too late and the stats back that up, I don't think we should gamble the public's safety on it.

[grrclark]

3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

I'm of the opinion we should blame the offenders for their offences rather than trying to make excuses for them, it's half the problem these days, there's no sense of personal responsibility and everything' always someone else's fault.

Thinking that you (please don't take offence i dont mean you personally) have the power or the knowledge to "save" everyone is naive at best and arrogant at worst but is insignificant when compared to the effects felt by the victims who are the ones who have to carry the can when henious crimes are carried out against them or their families after scum are released offence after offence after offence, chance after chance, the system does get it wrong, by not permanently locking the worst offenders up, well very rarely anyway. Do you think an often 60% reoffending rate within the first year of release is acceptable? (That figure will be lower depending on sentence length or more usually type of crime)

What has any of that got to do with my post?

[12gauge82]

28 minutes ago, grrclark said:

What has any of that got to do with my post?

You have effectively said that locking people up for life and the death penalty is not the answer and that rehabilitation should almost always be attempted as it',s often the state that'  to blame for offenders actions, or that's my interpretation of your post Any way. I have given my reasoning as to why, sometimes I don't beleive that's the case.

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

You have effectively said that locking people up for life and the death penalty is not the answer and that rehabilitation should almost always be attempted as it',s often the state that'  to blame for offenders actions, or that's my interpretation of your post Any way. I have given my reasoning as to why, sometimes I don't beleive that's the case.

I was going to ask you to show me where I said that or how you could even reach that interpretation, but I cannot be bothered with the utterly pointless resulting debate.

Yes i'm glad of no death penalty, the rest of your interpretation is simply made up.

I was also going to challenge you on your statistics, i.e. no reference to where those statistics come from up to 60% in one post, average 60% in another and If i recall correctly there was even an 80% thrown in the mix somewhere too, but again it is an utterly fruitless endeavour.

[12gauge82]

UP to 80% of prisoners will reoffend at some point after release from prison depending on the crime although the government will break that down into sentence length, up to 60% will reoffend within the first year of release again sentence length dependant, I would say it's actually higher than that as all crime obviously isn't solved therefor it's only 60% because theres probably many offenders who have broken the law and not been caught in the first year pushing the stats down but thats not proven, up to 60% in the first uear is.

All that aside I don't see your issue, I've got a different opinion to you, if your going to get that annoyed by hearing others opinions, don't post or have a conversation with yourself and you'll always get the answer you want to hear.

[grrclark]

33 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

UP to 80% of prisoners will reoffend at some point after release from prison depending on the crime although the government will break that down into sentence length, up to 60% will reoffend within the first year of release again sentence length dependant, I would say it's actually higher than that as all crime obviously isn't solved therefor it's only 60% because theres probably many offenders who have broken the law and not been caught in the first year pushing the stats down but thats not proven, up to 60% in the first uear is.

All that aside I don't see your issue, I've got a different opinion to you, if your going to get that annoyed by hearing others opinions, don't post or have a conversation with yourself and you'll always get the answer you want to hear.

Can you cite some evidence for those numbers?

I see that you are back to using "up to" instead of average, do you appreciate the difference?

If you look here, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655117/Overview-data-tool-oct15-dec15.xlsx which is the most recently published re-offending rates you will see that your 60% and 80% make no appearance.

Your comment about the reoffending rate being higher than your arbitrary numbers is nothing other than speculation and again your are misrepresenting conjecture as a fact.  

I have no issue at all with debate and others having a differeing opinion, I welcome it.  Reasoned debate and discussion is how we all learn.

What I do have an issue with is stupidity, ignorance and blatant misrepresentation.

If you cannot see an issue in how you have  utterly and deliberately misrepresented my post in order to justify your own point then you are either incapable of making a reasoned assessment or you are so ignorant as to not care.

 

Edit:  I gave the link to the wrong document, correct one is:  https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/655106/proven-reoffending-Oct15-Dec15.xlsx

Edited January 13, 2018 by grrclark

[12gauge82]

I've misrepresented nothing I made a speculation and said it was a speculation.

The figures were from the tip of my head and I beleive were correct as of a year or two ago, if you haven't guessed already I have some personal experience in all this, I did a quick Google search and found this link which I beleive back my figures up http://open.justice.gov.uk/reoffending/prisons/

 

I mean no disrespect to you grrclark and simply enjoy a debate, I'm sorry you feel that passionately about the issues discussed that you seem to have taken offence and I will leave it there, I have made my feelings on this subject known and have little else to add without going in circles, I respect you have a diffeent opinion to me and that my opinion is no more valuable than yours, fear not, after all I'm not the prime minister and I'm sure the law on capital punishment won't change anytime soon.

[grrclark]

It isn't about differing opinions, it's about misrepresentation.

Those numbers that you provide in that link are a breakdown of the reoffences based on the original sentence length, i.e. Of those that have reoffended then 59% of them had an original sentence of less than 12 months.

That is entirely different from saying that 59% of offenders will reoffend, it is also entirely different from saying that 59% of offenders who have served less than 12 months will reoffend.

What I am trying to stress, as in the police interceptors thread as well, you can't just cherry pick a bit of data and use that arbitrarily to suit your argument.

You actually made up an opinion for me in order to justify your point.

Saying something is your opinion is no excuse for ignorance or misrepresenting the truth.

If you want to use the actual recorded numbers as represented in the official government statistics, the document link I provided goes back to 2005, then for juvenile offenders involved in violence against another person the average reoffending rate is approximately 31% over the 10 years in that document.

The sexual crime average reoffence rate is approximately 18% over the 10 years in that document.

The average reoffence rates for adults are slightly lower.

None of that is about contesting your opinion, it is simply being diligent enough to actually try and make that your opinion is based on something resembling reality and not just makey up nonsense.

[12gauge82]

19 minutes ago, grrclark said:

It isn't about differing opinions, it's about misrepresentation.

Those numbers that you provide in that link are a breakdown of the reoffences based on the original sentence length, i.e. Of those that have reoffended then 59% of them had an original sentence of less than 12 months.

That is entirely different from saying that 59% of offenders will reoffend, it is also entirely different from saying that 59% of offenders who have served less than 12 months will reoffend.

What I am trying to stress, as in the police interceptors thread as well, you can't just cherry pick a bit of data and use that arbitrarily to suit your argument.

You actually made up an opinion for me in order to justify your point.

Saying something is your opinion is no excuse for ignorance or misrepresenting the truth.

If you want to use the actual recorded numbers as represented in the official government statistics, the document link I provided goes back to 2005, then for juvenile offenders involved in violence against another person the average reoffending rate is approximately 31% over the 10 years in that document.

The sexual crime average reoffence rate is approximately 18% over the 10 years in that document.

The average reoffence rates for adults are slightly lower.

None of that is about contesting your opinion, it is simply being diligent enough to actually try and make that your opinion is based on something resembling reality and not just makey up nonsense.

Those figures are for reoffending within the first year of release hardly very good are they.

As the figures were from memory it's also why I said up to 60% as they all differ depending on type of sentence, 60% is the upper figure, hence why I said up to.

[grrclark]

13 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Those figures are for reoffending within the first year of release hardly very good are they.

As the figures were from memory it's also why I said up to 60% as they all differ depending on type of sentence, 60% is the upper figure, hence why I said up to.

Good is subjective, I don't know what "good" actually means in the context of rehabilitation rates.  Those rates might be the best in the world, i don't know. 

[henry d]

I like good, subjective or not it is what drives us.

Is good a low figure of reoffending, if so then what are you/we doing to ensure that the figure is low as possible, do you/we do something about it? Lobby a politician, learn a skill, find out what helps people not reoffend? do you/we dig deep to help your fellow man to flourish, to be the person they could be if only they didn`t have to struggle each and every minute of the day to survive?

It is only at the stage where every avenue is exhausted, when you/we have walked a mile in their shoes and survived and after each possible outcome is tried and the person found wanting can anyone possibly judge them.

[grrclark]

16 minutes ago, henry d said:

I like good, subjective or not it is what drives us.

Is good a low figure of reoffending, if so then what are you/we doing to ensure that the figure is low as possible, do you/we do something about it? Lobby a politician, learn a skill, find out what helps people not reoffend? do you/we dig deep to help your fellow man to flourish, to be the person they could be if only they didn`t have to struggle each and every minute of the day to survive?

It is only at the stage where every avenue is exhausted, when you/we have walked a mile in their shoes and survived and after each possible outcome is tried and the person found wanting can anyone possibly judge them.

That's a good challenging post.

I think that one thing we can all do is to try and make ourselves less ignorant.  Not just to fall back on prejudice and start throwing stones unthinkingly.

Make an effort to understand where we can.  At least in doing that we give ourselves a chance to make a difference by knowing where we can have a positive influence.

If we all adopt an attitude of "it makes no difference anyway" then that is precisely what we will achieve.

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

That's a good challenging post.

I think that one thing we can all do is to try and make ourselves less ignorant.  Not just to fall back on prejudice and start throwing stones unthinkingly.

Make an effort to understand where we can.  At least in doing that we give ourselves a chance to make a difference by knowing where we can have a positive influence.

If we all adopt an attitude of "it makes no difference anyway" then that is precisely what we will achieve.

I don't think you get where I'm coming from, I fully agree with Henry d's post under normal circumstances, I'm the type of person who will bend over backwards to help anyone, but for me, it's not as simple as helping someone, for me it's about keeping inoccent people safe from murders and the like who may or may not reoffend, nobody can say if they will or not, look at those reoffending rates, good people are getting injured and killed, I don't think we should be gambling with the public's lives, that said, I know many many offender managers and probation officers who do wonderful hard work, I'm not criticising people who are trying their best to improve the situation but the system that puts dangerous people on the streets.

[Gordon R]

Quote

It is only at the stage where every avenue is exhausted, when you/we have walked a mile in their shoes and survived and after each possible outcome is tried and the person found wanting can anyone possibly judge them.

An emotive and sweeping statement. Is James Bulger's mother fit to judge Venables?

[grrclark]

18 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I don't think you get where I'm coming from, I fully agree with Henry d's post under normal circumstances, I'm the type of person who will bend over backwards to help anyone, but for me, it's not as simple as helping someone, for me it's about keeping inoccent people safe from murders and the like who may or may not reoffend, nobody can say if they will or not, look at those reoffending rates, good people are getting injured and killed, I don't think we should be gambling with the public's lives, that said, I know many many offender managers and probation officers who do wonderful hard work, I'm not criticising people who are trying their best to improve the situation but the system that puts dangerous people on the streets.

What has any of that to do with my reply to Henry D's post?

Where did I reference you at all in that reply that should lead to this post?

[12gauge82]

As a final word from me on this subject take a look at what's happening with the John worboys situation from the looks of it the probation service have followed the correct guidelines and he's been released despite the possibility he was guilty of over a hundred sexual attacks on women, in my opinion things need changing.

I'm bowing out of this one as I feel I've said my peice and if i add to it further i will only go in circles and don't want to spoil what I have found to be a mostly interesting and enjoyable debate.

[henry d]

13 hours ago, Gordon R said:

An emotive and sweeping statement. Is James Bulger's mother fit to judge Venables?

Can anyone judge another if they are involved emotionally and relationally? I couldn`t if the roles were reversed and couldn`t when someone close to me was assaulted as I was not in my right mind, all I wanted was to knock 7 shades out of them, and that isn`t right either, he was judge in court and background reports were prepared and he did the restitution required by the "judge".

[Gordon R]

I accept his mother is too close, but it is the sweeping generalisation that implies no-one can judge that I cannot accept. The jury was neither involved emotionally or by relation, yet they judged.

There seems to be a school of thought that if someone isn't sympathetic to Venables, that somehow we are a lynch mob. I don't care what his background was, I care about what he originally did and what he has done since.

[panoma1]

The jury reached the verdict, they did not judge!.......the judge made his judgment and passed sentence!

Edited January 14, 2018 by panoma1

[Gordon R]

They judged him to be guilty.

verb

verb: judge; 3rd person present: judges; past tense: judged; past participle: judged; gerund or present participle: judging

1. 1.

   form an opinion or conclusion about.