Should British Government take benefits/housing off rioter's?

[bodie]

I understand why people want to be tougher on crime.  I really do.  The reality is though
what is a person going to do with no means to live...   they will have to choose between
starving and returning to crime!  You may have been tough,  but you are not breaking
the cycle. 

Also these decisions, if challenged in Europe will just make us the laughing stock.  Brits
who played an active roll in the drafting of European Law decide to do as i say and not
as i do.  I believe the European Court of Human Rights will definitely overturn some of
these decisions.  Then what?   Is Cameron really going to stick two fingers up?
I don't honestly know but it all sounds an expensive exercise to flex government
muscles and show the rest of the world how serious we are not about human rights.
 

[odeon]

I suspect Cameron's extreme measures won't hold water, anyway.

['Butterflies']

I'm leaning towards yes, if they are proven guilty. If you think it's OK to destroy other people's homes, why should the state provide one for you?

But guilty of what?

If someone is guilty of burning down a building, then send them to jail. If someone stole a pair of trainers in the looting, then a much lesser punishment. Maybe a fine, maybe community service.

Why should their families be made homeless just to punish the offender.

The people who are found guilty of crimes should be punished for those crimes. Making people homeless and destitute is cruel and unusual punishment as far as I can see.

I didn't actually consider innocent people getting evicted--I was thinking about some cunt who was happy to have the state fund his living while he was out rioting and burning down homes. But no, I don't think a 16-yo's family should have to suffer, just the 16-yo.

And no, I didn't suggest that a pair of stolen trainers should equal eviction.

I do think strong measures should be taken, however.

I agree with that.

Jails, community service, and fines are all cool with me. Even sending some of the more minor offenders out onto the street to clean up their mess is cool with me.

Depriving people of the means to survive, is not.

[odeon]

As I already posted, I doubt Cameron's measures will hold water. For one thing, innocent people being hurt by a punishment is not OK in any Western country, AFAIK. The world would react, and rightly so.

But, I suspect that many of these rioters knew what they were doing and probably still think that whatever punishment the state actually does provide--if they get caught--is not that bad, not worth staying home for. I hate that thought because it clearly demonstrates the need for further measures.

I know it to be the case here, in some contexts. The football hooligans are a good example.

[Scrapheap]

This is the police-state power that comes with a socialistic society. 

These things aren't quite an issue in the U.S.

To answer your question, no. The State shouldn't have the power to throw innocent people on the streets.

[Callaway]

I'm leaning towards yes, if they are proven guilty. If you think it's OK to destroy other people's homes, why should the state provide one for you?

But guilty of what?

If someone is guilty of burning down a building, then send them to jail. If someone stole a pair of trainers in the looting, then a much lesser punishment. Maybe a fine, maybe community service.

Why should their families be made homeless just to punish the offender.

The people who are found guilty of crimes should be punished for those crimes. Making people homeless and destitute is cruel and unusual punishment as far as I can see.

I didn't actually consider innocent people getting evicted--I was thinking about some cunt who was happy to have the state fund his living while he was out rioting and burning down homes. But no, I don't think a 16-yo's family should have to suffer, just the 16-yo.

And no, I didn't suggest that a pair of stolen trainers should equal eviction.

I do think strong measures should be taken, however.

I agree with that.

Jails, community service, and fines are all cool with me. Even sending some of the more minor offenders out onto the street to clean up their mess is cool with me.

Depriving people of the means to survive, is not.

If the 16 year old is convicted in court, then he should have to pay his debt to society based on what it was that he did.

If he stole trainers, I think that he should have to do something to get trainers for people who are less fortunate then he is.

If he burned a building, I think that he should spend some time in jail, then have to work to help rebuild buildings for people, but I think it's grossly unfair to have his mother and little sister evicted for something that he did.

[bodie]

As far as punishment goes,  i would agree some should do jail.  I would reserve this for the ringleaders more,
or the ones with a criminal record as long as your arm.

I think putting someone of that age in prison, if it is their first offence is not so wise.  I have often questioned
the wisdom of putting a load of thieves all together in a prison.  It is not hard to guess what type of stuff they
talk about.  I have never been in prison,  and i am really guessing here but i can't help but think of them as
a University of Crime where they pick up tips how not to get caught next time. 

Only the most sick and violent crimes should be custodial.  I suppose it could be argued that is soft, but i am
thinking about 'reform' and not just punishment.  Some kind of community work like what Callaway said would
be a better solution than jail for a young offender.

['Butterflies']

I think jail is the appropriate sentence for the people who are guilty of burning down shops and houses.

[bodie]

I am really surprised by Cameron's actions.  Before he got elected he seemed to be half decent.
I would never vote that way anyway,  but i got the vibe he wasn't as staunch as some of his
predecessors.  I remember his web cam live from his home -  and i really thought he was
'interested' in us and thought he was a 'listener'   

Now i think he got a lot of followers due to his wife Samantha,  who is actually quite a likeable
woman.  I think it was stopped when it was starting to be referred as 'SamCam'  lol

Maybe he should give Sam a go at running the country!

[bodie]

Yup Arsonists should be locked up.  They do put the public at risk.

Fire does so much damage and can kill just from fumes.

Very different though from a kid who takes an MP3 player from a shop window.

[Frolic_Fun]

Benefits: Yes, and made to go to prison/years of community service in order to regain them in terms of severity.
Eviction: No, but will eventually be kicked out if they don't try to regain their benefits.

I don't believe in fairness for all civilians though, to be honest. Cause shit and you'll receive it. If it were up to me all severe rioters would be lined up and shot blindfolded, but sadly that won't happen realistically.

['Butterflies']

I would never vote Tory either. Theyre a nasty little right wing party.

Ihave to admit, I didnt ever like him. I thought he looked too smug.

Its maybe my socialist roots talking, but Ive always seen the Tories as the bad guys. Make the rich richer, the poor poorer, and fuck the consequences for society. They can always blame societies ills on single mums, the workshy, absentee fathers, or immigrants, and their right wing supporters will lap it up.

[Frolic_Fun]

Personally I think both left and right are as bad as each other.

There is no real "right" way to properly run society though, IMO. People will complain about this or that regardless.

[bodie]

@ schleed.

That reminded me so much of my old boss who would sit there scowling if
anyone threw their McDonalds rubbish outside his restaurant
"They should all be shot, Teraiza, lined up and shot"  he used to say in
an Al Pacino/Tony Montana style accent.

Funny thing was after two glasses of wine he was like a big soppy puppy
dog and loved everyone!

['andersom']

No way that a mother and a 7 year old sister should be evicted for the deeds of a 16 yo.


Punishment for the 16 yo, yes, absolutely.

Community service would be good, if someone really invested energy in that.

Get him to work where he damaged things. Make him see there were people, actual, living and breathing people like him, where he damaged stuff. No community service in groups of thugs.

Somehow bring a sense of human interaction back.

And not a 12 hour service as a punishment. Long term. Long enough to make people connect with where they are working. 

Won't happen of course, way too expensive, to invest in a society and a community.