Jump to content

Facebook, yobs canal boats and a lock


bigcol

Featured Posts

I have never disciplined my child by smacking, I always found that if the punishment fits the crime the lesson is better learned.

When I was frustrated that my dad was being stubborn and making looking after him difficult my daughter suggested I did to him what I did to her, namely making him live by the consequences of his actions. No shopping list? He had to go himself, (only did that once!).

I was surprised that she realised what I had been doing!

I have a well adjusted, well behaved daughter, I can't say what would have happened if she had been rebellious and  difficult though.

Edited by Dyertribe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Wanted said:

That is far from a serious or indeed relevant question, I'm enjoying this topic, let's stay on it? 

I am ok with that but though not relevant it was serious. With him and Trump we could all have problems!!

7 minutes ago, carlt said:

Well I think he's beyond a good spanking but he is no worse than Trump (and a lot less dangerous). 

Haa I hadn't seen this post till I just replied to Wanteds post......yes indeed he is a lesser nutter than Trump but what a pair we have with those two :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Haa I hadn't seen this post till I just replied to Wanteds post......yes indeed he is a lesser nutter than Trump but what a pair we have with those two :o

Back on topic (though not entirely seriously).

I believe Trump was educated at an extremely strict Military Academy....Proof enough for me that a disciplinarian regime can do some harm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, carlt said:

Back on topic (though not entirely seriously).

I believe Trump was educated at an extremely strict Military Academy....Proof enough for me that a disciplinarian regime can do some harm.

Ill give you that one :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll play ;) 

so the two things we can see from both of these leaders is their consistent threat of violence in their aim to 'win' 

we, as observers can all see that their approach isn't working and if nobody backs down then we risk unimaginable outcomes. 

The answer is obviously in dialogue rather than hydrogen bombs, so providing our children are not wandering survivalists in a post apocalyptic nightmare, I suggest we teach them all we can about non violent forms of resolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Nightwatch said:

My post from a long time ago (22) suggested give these children,that is what they are, the chance to go to a scheme where they will be looked after and educated about wrong doing. No bullying and physical harm. Just plain old getting to see the error of their ways. Unless these children do a real criminal crime,why send then to what used to be Borstal. For the same cost,allow them to enjoy a couple of weeks of hard work and disapline.

The theory of your idea may sound good but the practice is where it falls down. Yes, take an unruly (gobby) child into another environment and teaching them discipline and the error of their ways is all very good..........and then what? When they come from an environment in which father gets drunk and beats their mother, most of the people that they associate with deal/take drugs and carry knives, how long is your good work going to last when you return them to that environment? This is where the penal policy repeatedly fails, they lock someone up, supposedly educate them with some life skills (now increasingly rare in prison since they no longer have the manpower to do so) and then return them to the environment where they learned their anti-social skills in the first place, and we are supposed to be surprised that the the re-offending stats are so high.

Although I was initially sceptical of the idea when it was first brought in, the Restorative Justice model does actually work (for certain crimes), sadly it is seen by some as an airy-fairy, leftie liberal idea. What it actually does however is to take away the anonymity of crime and lets both the victim and the offender realise that real people are involved. Rather than having some image of who the guy who broke into your house was, you get to meet him (obviously in a controlled environment) and rather then being the demon that you imagined, you find out that he is actually rather a pathetic individual. Since he broke into your house you aren't going to feel sorry for him, but you realise that he isn't someone to be particularly scared of. The offender, whose view is that since insurers will pay to replace what he steals, he doesn't think about the individual whose house he is violating. When he has to meet the victim face to face, rather than in the adversarial context of Court, it becomes very uncomfortable for him realising that the effect of his actions are not simply covered by insurance. The re-offending rate for those subjected to Restorative Justice is far lower than most other means of disposal. 

The question we need to answer is what we trying to achieve? If we want to feel good about the punishments inflicted on others (Canings, long prison sentences etc.etc.) then we keep on 'upping the ante' and lock more people up, execute a few and give the rest a good thrashing. If we are trying to stop the behaviour in the first place we need to look at other options.

Just from a personal perspective, the caning I received at school achieved nothing constructive; I did not give any consideration to the likelihood of being caned prior to committing the action that resulted in the caning (stupid rather than malicious act) and, if any thoughts came to mind afterwards it was more along the lines of,"If I do something like that again I'll make sure I don't get caught". This is also how many criminals think regarding punitive punishments.

Edited by Wanderer Vagabond
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The theory of your idea may sound good but the practice is where it falls down. Yes, take an unruly (gobby) child into another environment and teaching them discipline and the error of their ways is all very good..........and then what? When they come from an environment in which father gets drunk and beats their mother, most of the people that they associate with deal/take drugs and carry knives, how long is your good work going to last when you return them to that environment? This is where the penal policy repeatedly fails, they lock someone up, supposedly educate them with some life skills (now increasingly rare in prison since they no longer have the manpower to do so) and then return them to the environment where they learned their anti-social skills in the first place, and we are supposed to be surprised that the the re-offending stats are so high.

Although I was initially sceptical of the idea when it was first brought in, the Restorative Justice model does actually work (for certain crimes), sadly it is seen by some as an airy-fairy, leftie liberal idea. What it actually does however is to take away the anonymity of crime and lets both the victim and the offender realise that real people are involved. Rather than having some image of who the guy who broke into your house was, you get to meet him (obviously in a controlled environment) and rather then being the demon that you imagined, you find out that he is actually rather a pathetic individual. Since he broke into your house you aren't going to feel sorry for him, but you realise that he isn't someone to be particularly scared of. The offender, whose view is that since insurers will pay to replace what he steals, he doesn't think about the individual whose house he is violating. When he has to meet the victim face to face, rather than in the adversarial context of Court, it becomes very uncomfortable for him realising that the effect of his actions are not simply covered by insurance. The re-offending rate for those subjected to Restorative Justice is far lower than most other means of disposal. 

The question we need to answer is what we trying to achieve? If we want to feel good about the punishments inflicted on others (Canings, long prison sentences etc.etc.) then we keep on 'upping the ante' and lock more people up, execute a few and give the rest a good thrashing. If we are trying to stop the behaviour in the first place we need to look at other options.

Just from a personal perspective, the caning I received at school achieved nothing constructive; I did not give any consideration to the likelihood of being caned prior to committing the action that resulted in the caning (stupid rather than malicious act) and, if any thoughts came to mind afterwards it was more along the lines of,"If I do something like that again I'll make sure I don't get caught". This is also how many criminals think regarding punitive punishments.

To take your first bit a little further, not only is removing somebody from their own environment short lived as you say, it also disregards the positive resources that the young person has in their community. What kids have in spades is resilience, building on this with positive examples is key. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.