Monday 6 February 2012

Committing Crimes Does Result In Consequences, Then?

Erwin James whinges about changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme:
successful rehabilitation requires a two-way commitment. If we really want our system to work effectively then once people who have committed crimes have served their time, completed their sentence, paid their debt and shown that they want to live crime-free lives, then society needs to demonstrate a greater level of acceptance.
Do we? And what does that ‘level of acceptance’ mean in practice?
Discrimination against people with criminal convictions is already rife in the job market. Accessing financial services once you have declared that you have been in prison is almost impossible. Even finding accommodation is made more difficult when you state on the application form that you are an ex-offender.
Well, yes. Because the system of punishment is only part of the process, the state-administered part.

After that comes the societal part, the shunning and disapproval of the criminal. And that’s not likely to change. You can’t force businesses to take on old lags if they don’t want to. And in a recession, with their pick of available workers, why should they want to?
Recently, a new tax was also imposed on the earnings of prisoners who are lucky enough to find work when they get to open prisons and are nearing the end of their sentences. As well as their income tax and national insurance, they have to pay a 40% surcharge on what they have left to the charity Victim Support.
Whereas, before, they got away scot-free? Well, Erwin, I’m not exactly crying a river here. What other burning injustices you got?
It was already the case that people with criminal convictions were treated differently by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.
While they could indeed submit a claim, any money that might be received is reduced dependent on the extent of their past criminal behaviour. This policy includes compensation payments to the families of people with criminal convictions. Last year, the family of a man killed in the 2010 Cumbrian shooting spree had to make do with only half the compensation offered to the families of Bird's other victims: it had been 20 years since their loved one had been convicted of any crime other than a litter-dropping offence two years before he was killed. It made no difference – in the eyes of those running the compensation scheme, he was less valuable than the other victims.
Hmmm, odd wording - ‘20 years since their loved one had been convicted of any crime other than a litter-dropping offence’. I’d like to know the offence that prevented him receiving the full amount, because it’s certainly not dropping litter!
A source "close to the justice secretary" told a tabloid newspaper "thugs make a claim if they end up injured in a punch-up. We've got to get compensation to victims". Nobody can deny that anyone who has been traumatised by someone else in some type of criminal action deserves to be compensated.
Yup, they can. I do. If I read that a criminal has been injured by another criminal I think ‘Karma!’. And so do many, many people…
There are eight million people on the government's "offender index." Ken Clarke is saying that they are all less valuable and by definition less human than others.
Yup. And I think you’ll find that most of Britain is just fine with that. Well, except the criminals, of course.

But there’s an easy way to avoid this ‘awful discrimination’, Erwin, one not available to victims of real discrimination, like racial discrimination, or discrimination on the basis of disability.

Don’t commit crime. Simples!

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

You bloody idiot.

Michael Fowke said...

Of course, it means criminals have to stick with crime ...

DJ said...

Exactly right. Serving their sentence means they get released. It isn't some kind of secular absolution which means the rest of us are required to treat perverts and thugs like returning veterans back from a particularly long tour of duty.

Meanwhile, none of these people can explain how back in the day, when everyone in town knew exactly who was a Wrong'Un, we nevertheless had far less crime.

Captain Haddock said...

Anonymous said ...

"You bloody idiot" ...

Well, you'd be best qualified to know ..

Not the first Anonymous said...

I read Julia's fisking, then flicked up to be sure the original article was in the Guardian.

Yup, world still spinning on normal axis.

And why does it take an Italian football coach to explain the principle of innocent until proven guilty to the MSM ?

Clink clink said...

I am not sure why our 'leaders' are so out of touch. But they are.

They worry about these second class citizens, if I can summarise it that way, but never ask why these people preferred to choose that occupation. It is clear to most people, even in this muted and dulled society, that crime = police = courts = jail (well, sometimes). So it's hardly a shock to find that being a violent twat or thieving bastard or murderous member of a lunatic cult results in a less than ideal time for a while. Later, they will find people thinking they don't want anything to do with the crim as in various cases the rehabilitation doesn't work too well and the baddie often carries on behaving as they did before.

If what they do is a 'human weakness' then what the rest of us do afterwards in response is much the same.

We also recognise that crims freely enter into a world established by other crims, where the prevailing idea of justice is summary violence dispensed by some nasty individuals. There really can't be any complaints.

Some people may be forced into crime by threat and blackmail, but the majority want to join of their own choice. I believe then that what happens afterwards is called a 'consequence.'

Captain Haddock said...

"I am not sure why our 'leaders' are so out of touch. But they are" ...

I don't think they're so much "out of touch" as more concerned with "image" than with reality (but then, what else can one expect from a failed PR man ?)

None of them are personally affected by crime, so remain insulated from its consequences ..

If imprisonment fails to deter .. then its obviously not hard enough .. and there's a very simple answer to that ..

Tattyfalarr said...

"once people who have committed crimes have served their time, completed their sentence, paid their debt and shown that they want to live crime-free lives...."

Fairy 'nuff...so, when does that bit start then ?

Anonymous said...

There but for the grace of God - etc.
Remember that.

JuliaM said...

"You bloody idiot."

Well, what a well-researched and painstakingly outlined rebuttal! I'll let Apu handle this one...

"Of course, it means criminals have to stick with crime ..."

'Three strikes' policy would take care of that, wouldn't it?

"Serving their sentence means they get released. It isn't some kind of secular absolution which means the rest of us are required to treat perverts and thugs like returning veterans back from a particularly long tour of duty. "

Spot on!

"If what they do is a 'human weakness' then what the rest of us do afterwards in response is much the same."

I guess, to the bleeding hearts, there's a scale of human weakness, and this is at the end they won't tolerate. So judgemental, you see...

"None of them are personally affected by crime, so remain insulated from its consequences .."

Unless they are committing it!

"There but for the grace of God - etc."

Yes, good point, with NuLab's desire to cram the books with all kinds of 'non-crimes' and 'thought crimes', it would indeed be possible to transgress. Maybe even without knowing!

But probably not to accidentally become a murderer, like wot Erwin is.

Michael Fowke said...

We don't have a Three Strikes Policy though, so criminals are sticking to crime ...