Crime and criminals

[Ian]

I'm afraid that the issue of who is competent to decide on drugs is just detail, and of little consequence compared to the overall principle.

 On the contrary, I suspect criteria are at the very core of criminality, Fester;  you cannot assume someone is guilty of a criminal offence unless the criteria for said offence has been spelt out in excruciating detail, other wise the defence will thrive on exculpation.

Scumbags are rife, and they just need sorting out, I think the vast majority are agreed on that

Low level criminality issues, such as public order offences seem to have reignited this debate, and most of those seem to be caused by alcohol or mental illness. To 'sort them out' you'd need to define exactly what penalties were needed for what offences. It's very simple to talk at length about 'what needs to be done' and what you'd do to solve the situation, but it has been tried before.  In the mid-eighteenth century, almost any public order infraction was punished severely and immediately, in most cases.  Yet they continued, unabated, and crime then was far worse than now.

Unfortunately we have got sidetracked away from the main point

But didn't you say

Drug taking will feature wherever the 'powers that be' decide it features.... maybe 1 point, maybe 2... that will be up to competent people.

which seems it's pretty central to the point.  Also, you did say

I will answer ANY questions on the subject.

   WWW WWW WWW

[pentan]

Low level criminality issues, such as public order offences seem to have reignited this debate, and most of those seem to be caused by alcohol or mental illness

The true fact about any crime statistic no police presence , lack of respect  even if we had a 2 year jail term for public order offences  they would not care it’s just another badge to add to their wanabee gangster image

Out of 1,564 people convicted for homicide in England and Wales between April 1996 and April 1999, 164 (10 per cent) were found to have had symptoms of mental health problems at the time of the offence. A later study looking at homicides committed between January 1997 and December 2005 found that the same proportion, 10 per cent (510 of 5,189), were by individuals known to have had mental health problems at the time of the offence.
In 2009, the total population in England and Wales aged 16 or over was just over 43 million. It has been estimated that about one in six of the adult population will have a significant mental health problem at any one time, which amounts to more than 7 million people. Given this number and the 50–70 cases of homicide a year involving people known to have a mental health problem at the time of the murder, clearly the statistics data do not support the sensationalised media coverage about the danger that people with mental health problems present to the community.
The majority of violent crimes and homicides are committed by people who do not have mental health problems. In fact, 95 per cent of homicides are committed by people who have not been diagnosed with a mental health problem

[DaveR]

Low level criminality issues, such as public order offences seem to have reignited this debate

The problem is that these offences are regarded as low level, when in fact they can prove a serious deterrent to greater usage of public transport, particularly at night.

In my experience, the sort of people committing these offences on public transport are always the same. Always a male in their 20s or 30s, always a Manchester or Liverpool accent, always swigging from cans of lager, always swearing at the top of their voice.

[Ian]

I agree.  So I think what we have to ask ourselves is whether this is a UK problem or is it wider?  Does the same sort of thing happen throughout Europe, for instance? If not, what's different about their society and culture?

...in fact they can prove a serious deterrent to greater usage of public transport, particularly at night.

I suspect that basically what you're saying is that young adult males see getting drunk as something to which they aspire, with all the associated anti-social consequences.  That's probably what we have to change.  Raising the legal drinking age might be a start.  Making it illegal for pubs and off licences to serve anyone under 25 might also be helpful.  The trouble is that both strategies only treat symptoms, and not the problem. When we live in a society that denigrates achievement, where the self-same people think it's good to send derogatory texts to our highest achievers (and don't forget Tm Daley had to move schools after Bejing, such was the scale of the hostility from other boys at the Comprehensive he attended until then), what do we do to make achievement something to be chased, and not denigrated;  to make success something to which all should aspire and not ridicule?

As I've said before, no easy answers, I'm afraid.

[Fester]

I will indeed always answer any question on this topic, (and this solution of mine)... or perhaps I should say 'respond' instead, as I may not have the definitive detailed answer to each point raised.

I would strongly dispute that there is less crime now than in the 1800's, for two main reasons.

1. The population now is significantly higher.
2, In the 1800's people were imprisoned for crimes when they had done very little (an apple from a market stall, or minor debts) Whereas these days, an enormous amount of crimes are not even recorder, because people know that there is no point reporting them.

[Ian]

I would strongly dispute that there is less crime now than in the 1800's, for two main reasons.

From Homicide rates across the ages, by Professor Peter King — University of Leicester
"For example, in Europe in the Middle Ages murder prosecution rates were twenty times greater than they are now. The long-term decline in recorded homicides which was a major feature of the period from the fourteenth to the late nineteenth centuries has encouraged some historians to argue that the modernisation and the urbanisation process that occurred across Europe in this period was been the key factor behind this drastic reduction in levels of inter-personal violence."

But inevitably, a great deal comes down to how crime is defined. And that brings us neatly back to the drug debate.

[Fester]

Good evening Ian,

I don't buy that quote for one minute.

You see, in the middle ages they would simply execute the most 'convenient' person .... case solved!

[Ian]

They did;  and with that policy, no doubt, many innocent folk paid the price.

[Fester]

I always make sure my 'potentially' life changing Lotto numbers are on.... because you just never know.

However, I have always been a little wary of shop workers checking my ticket, and telling me I haven't won... and then for THEM to claim my prize.
Call it being untrusting, and even paranoid, but take a look at the news story here,  it HAS happened, to the tune of a million quid! To an 80 year old couple.
I am now going to be even more vigilant and check every draw myself, online.   I urge you all to do the same.

I was disgusted to see this article, but I shouldn't have been surprised.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-19080214

[Fester]

They did;  and with that policy, no doubt, many innocent folk paid the price.

Indeed Ian, and no matter how hard-line I might appear on this topic, I would never, ever want that to happen.

I am very keen on justice, and despise injustice.

[SDQ]

If you actually play the lottery online Camelot checks your ticket for you. If you win they send you an e-mail to inform you & automatically pay the winnings into your account. You can then either leave it there for future games or if it's more substantial transfer it direct to your bank account. If you play the same numbers you can even set it up as a direct debit so you never have to worry about missing a draw through illness or forgetting to go to the shop.

[Yorkie]

I've played "on-line" since the facility started doing 8 weeks at a time.   You are paid any prize direct and are also reminded when the tickets run out.  Not one the big one yet but live in hope!   D)

[Yorkie]

Just to add to the above; when I bought tickets from a shop I always put my name and short address on the back, and I would recommend everyone to do so.

As an aside the Mrs bought a Lucky Dip for yesterday's Draw and on checking this morning it has 4 numbers for £74.00 - "I thenk you!" as Arthur Askey used to say!!    ZXZ

[snowcap]

big hearted Arthur what a guy.

[DaveR]

I believe the Lotto terminal in a shop makes a noise when you check a ticket if a large prize is won.