主播大秀

For years and years we have suffered the pedantic performances of managerial personalities either as kings, prime ministers or whatever.
It is time we were able to choose our leaders properly and not be allowed to vote for a party. Furthermore, POLICIES don't mean a thing if the declarer doesn't really know how to IMPLEMENT them. That is why we are in such a mess now. Too many cockeyed ideas that do not work.
Too many blokes looking for an easy path to power. And we let it happen!

IPSWICH - RED LIGHT DISTRICT

The 5 young women who died in Ipswich had all been addicted to drugs, and a man has been charged with murdering them. An important presentation by Newsnight, looking at the problems and possible solutions.

Women working in prostitution are incredibly vulnerable, tend to lead chaotic lifestyles, and are frequently dependent on illegal drugs. They desperately need treatment, help and support - not punishment (jail). Above all, they must be shown humanity and compassion.

My main concern is that Parliament is about to debate a new law requiring street sex workers to attend counselling sessions; if they don't, they face jail. Ministers should listen to someone like "Debbie" (interviewed on the programme) who has worked as a prostitute. Aged 25, and jailed 24 times, she says prison doesn't work.

It is worth repeating comments made by Chief Inspector of Prisons Anne Owers, who has repeatedly drawn attention to the need to deal with drug dependency as a condition requiring medical treatment.

"A report by Baroness Jean Corston of a review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the criminal justice system", handed to Government in March 2007, includes as one of its recommendations: "community solutions for non-violent women offenders should be the norm" (ISBN 978-1-84726-177-9). Ministers have promised to respond by Autumn 2007.

The oft heard political rhetoric 'lessons will be learned' must now be translated into robust and effective action. This must not be allowed to develop into a game of political ping-pong amongst politicians: the lives of vulnerable women are at stake.

We know Cameron wants to hld back on much of policy until an election, but when he does come out with one, is it half-baked? Take the tax break for married couples. Will a few hundred pounds - even a thousand - persuade people to marry who otherwise wouldn't, or keep people married when they want to split? Or is that just an ill-thought-out headline grabber?

We know Cameron wants to hld back on much of policy until an election, but when he does come out with one, is it half-baked? Take the tax break for married couples. Will a few hundred pounds - even a thousand - persuade people to marry who otherwise wouldn't, or keep people married when they want to split? Or is that just an ill-thought-out headline grabber?

In response to another street crime horror, Cameron asks "what is going on in this country?" or something very like that. Is that because, as an Old Etonian, he couldn't reasonably be expected to know? Is a man who wore centuries-old fancy dress at school equipped to deal with the social problems of 21st century Britain?

I think the report on prostitution was well done.
It conveyed to me quite reliably, (I think), that there is a problem and what is being attempted in order to deal with it.

I appreciate the fact that the report did not seem to over-simplify either the problem or the remedies which are being attempted. Information about the degree of uncertainty involved, at this stage, in the project was valuable.

I appreciate very much that I was left to have & process my own feelings about the matter, rather than having them whipped up by someone else on my behalf and at the possible expense of the participants.

Thank you.

so taking drugs doesn't lead to happiness? its a bit counter culture to give that image?

the elephant in the room no one talks about is where and how heroin comes into the uk. Apparently to buy the whole afghan crop would cost 拢3 billion. If we didn't pay our farmers 拢4 billion a year subsidy they would probably be growing it too?

"But how far is this blaming the Iraqis for a catastrophe imposed on the country by ... well ... us?"

Excuse me, is that 'us' as in 'we', or 'you and me'?

I once read a fascinating book about predatory criminals, such as muggers, rapists, murderers and other such people. It listed and disected the many psychological stratagies they employ to turn people into their victims, lowering their defences, subverting critical thought, and diverting attention.

Particularly interesting was the authors discussion of "forced grouping." This is a strategy predators use so that victims group themsevles and the predator together, perhaps due to a mutual heritage, a common predicament, or shared responsibility. The author advises to be wary of such behaviour, as it is often indicative of an ulterior motive.

I couldn't help but notice as I read through these predatory strategies, that they are the staple produce of political debate. In particular, it is never beyond politicians and media pundits, to make completely inappropriate references to 'us' and 'we', as though the vast majority are in agreement, and responsible for, whatever problem they are crusading against.

It is a particularly transparent and disingenuous strategy (at best careless) when talking of Iraq. The democratic process by which leaders are selected, and consequent foreign policy is written, is conspicuously far removed from the decision-making of the ordinary people to who your question is addressed, even further removed from anything they might be considered culpible for.

It is scarcely possible to get every member of the same family to agree on anything, nevermind the 60 million people who comprise the 'us' to which you refer. I would think few approve of half of the decisions made by people in government, and would no doubt move to reverse many such decisions if it were within their power.

Alas, this is but one of the ills of contemporary political debate--to anthropomorphise nations, individuals on the world stage, with motivations, feeling, and responsibility, a global soap opera. That it completely misrepresents political processes, (particularly in liberal democracies), seems to deter few. Its appeal to ideologues, demagogues, and politicians is great, its rhetorical appeal is too strong.

Why is it that "making politics accessible to the common man," so often means "turning politics into an episode of Eastenders"?

You might wonder why I care so much about the use of a two-letter word, since I might well have focused upon the assumption that the catastrophe in Iraq is entirely "imposed," thereby assuming exactly what many would dispute, thus begging the question. I simply dislike the the sloppy thinking and lack of critical thought which passes political debate on the 主播大秀, and to be fair, the media in general.

"My main concern is that Parliament is about to debate a new law requiring street sex workers to attend counselling sessions; if they don't, they face jail. Ministers should listen to someone like "Debbie" (interviewed on the programme) who has worked as a prostitute. Aged 25, and jailed 24 times, she says prison doesn't work." - Pauline Campbell

Pauline,

First, I must state clearly. I believe prostitution and drugs should be legalised, or at least not prohibited by national government, (localised legislation would be more appropriate).

However, I also believe that revoking such legislation which currently prohibits such trade/substances is the job of legislators, through proper processes. Until that time, laws need to be enforced, which includes adequte punishments to disincentivise whatever behaviour is prohibited.

It is clear that anyone who has been imprisoned almost as many times as she is years old, is not being put in prison long enough. Even where prison doesn't change reoffending *rates*, it always reduces the *total number* of reoffences, since while someone is in prison, they are certainly not reoffending.

Regards,
Lee

IPSWICH - RED LIGHT DISTRICT

Re comment posted 29th August, 4.29 pm (Lee Kelly)

Generally speaking, I agree that laws need to be enforced. However, the point is that many women sent to prison are in a very fragile state, with troubled backgrounds. Most are ill, in need of care and treatment (not punishment); sending them to jail often exacerbates, rather than solves, their difficulties, leading to unacceptably high levels of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in women's prisons.

Regarding "adequate punishments" - it is important to remember that there are alternatives to jail (ie non-custodial punishments), and this is explored in detail in Baroness Corston's report (see my post No 3 for ISBN; this is a public document and anyone can get a copy).

Re the point that "while someone is in prison they are certainly not reoffending" - this is a sweeping statement and not strictly correct. Due to high levels of violence in prison, sometimes leading to homicide; drug taking, and drug dealing, it is unfortunately the case that inmates do sometimes commit further criminal offences while in jail, though this statement would tend to apply to men's prisons.

Re the statement "it is clear that anyone who has been imprisoned almost as many times as she is years old, is not being put in prison long enough" (referring to Debbie, aged 25, jailed 24 times) - I disagree. In fact, Debbie's case is an example of the fact that prison doesn't work.

Sentencing someone like Debbie to even longer jail sentences is contra-indicated, because (i) it would add to the problems of overcrowding, and (ii) prison doesn't work anyway, evidenced by the high levels of recidivism (two-thirds of inmates reoffend after release); again, Debbie is a case in point.

When it is patently clear that something doesn't work (eg prison) common sense requires that we look to alternatives. Community sentences (suitable for non-violent offenders) are usually more effective and cost less.

I recommend the Corston Report for further information; I was one of the contributors to the review last year, and wholeheartedly endorse the excellent recommendations contained in the report.

So disappointed - nothing about doing away with targets, nothing on tough sentences, nothing on deterrent sentencing, nothing about punishing the guilty, nothing about protecting the innocent. Just a lot of vague meaningless drivel.No extra prisons, no commonsense, nothing about immigration, sending them back, nothing about Europe. Sorry David it's just not good enough.

Great program ,I look forward
to your balancing program when Brown is confronted with four hostile right wing journalists

Or am I dreaming

Sir, Re; jsheppard, I look forward to a programme when Brown is confronted by four hostile left wing journalists, and I really am dreaming Sincerely, Steve

Re Pauline Campbell Comments 3 & 12

IPSWICH - RED LIGHT DISTRICT

My sincere thanks to Pauline Campbell for your most excellent comments and recommendations. I have profound respect for your understanding of what we need to do in Britain if we are sincere about tackling these problems in our society.

Hi Pauline, thanks for the response.

"I agree that laws need to be enforced. However, the point is that many women sent to prison are in a very fragile state, with troubled backgrounds."

It is an unfortunate fact that many people sent to prison, male or female, for whatever crime, are very "fragile" or from "troubled backgrounds". But as Hayek once pointed out, it is not irrelevent that to the ancients blindness was an attribute of their deity of justice. Before the law, everyone is (or at least should be) equal, nobody is awarded special priviledges for fragility, or a troubled background. If nothing else, it ignores, and even insults, upstanding members of the public from similarly "troubled backgrounds".

"Most are ill, in need of care and treatment (not punishment); sending them to jail often exacerbates, rather than solves, their difficulties, leading to unacceptably high levels of self-harm and self-inflicted deaths in women's prisons."

Of course, if anybody in custody is ill, in need of care and treatment, they should be treated. It is also true that even a single instance of self-harm or suicide is unacceptable, but neither of these problems preclude serving a prison sentence. There is no way to completely eliminate self-harm or suicide by unhappy or mentally ill people, criminals or not. Neither does its prevention trump every other consideration, there are trade-offs that must be made, whether palatible or not.

"it is important to remember that there are alternatives to jail (ie non-custodial punishments), and this is explored in detail in Baroness Corston's report (see my post No 3 for ISBN; this is a public document and anyone can get a copy)."

I did not forget that there are alternatives to prison, one such alternative is to not punish criminals at all. It is possible to simply find a defendent guilty, and then let them go free immediately. It is an open secret that "non-custodial sentemces" are often scarcely distinguishable from letting the guilty go free. There was a great book a few years back called 'A Land Fit For Criminals' which painstakingly detailed how this works.

Moreover, so-called "non custodial sentences" have just as high, and often higher rates of recidivism as custodial sentences. The difference is that those serving "non-custodial sentences" are back on streets reoffending almost immediately. That means the total number of reoffences is higher, thus consuming more police time and resources, and offering less incentive for offenders to stop their criminal activity.

In most cases, the tragic consequences of these policies are the many more innocent victims of crime. This, however, is why prostitution and drug use are a special case, since it is not obvious that anybody should be considered a victim of such crimes. Of course, we may consider people a victim of their own irresponsibility or stupidity, but hardly a victim in the sense that a criminal justice system is concerned. This is precisely why such a strong case can be made for legalisation, a case for which I sympathise.

That said, it is quite irrelevent, given that prostitution and drug use are illegal (i.e. prohibited), and it is the responsibility of those in government and the criminal justice system to enforce that prohibition, or else make a farce of the rule of law.

"Due to high levels of violence in prison, sometimes leading to homicide; drug taking, and drug dealing, it is unfortunately the case that inmates do sometimes commit further criminal offences while in jail, though this statement would tend to apply to men's prisons."

It is indeed unfortunate. In fact, it is unacceptable that any crime should be committed within prison walls, and such such crime should not go unpunished. This, however, like self-harm and suicide, is a problem that must be tackled within the prison system, and complete eradiction need not be a precondition for custodial sentencing. And this is quite besides the simple fact, that few would consider a criminal justice system superior, for preventing criminal offences while in custody by freeing criminals to commit those same offences in public.

"Sentencing someone like Debbie to even longer jail sentences is contra-indicated, because (i) it would add to the problems of overcrowding, and (ii) prison doesn't work anyway, evidenced by the high levels of recidivism (two-thirds of inmates reoffend after release); again, Debbie is a case in point."

First, it is not in dispute that prisons are overcrowded. However, it should not be taken as axiomatic that reducing the number and length of custodial sentences is the best way to solve the problem of overcrowding. It certainly seems plausable, that if we reduce the time convicts spend in prison, or make it more difficult for courts to hand out custodial sentences, that prison numbers would fall. However, this analysis completely omits the role of incentives in determining criminal activity, and thus fails to predict its own counterproductive consequences.

If you reduce the number, length, and overall severity of custodial sentences, you also reduce the costs and risks of being a criminal in the first place. In other words, you increase the average pay-off, thus making criminal activity more attractive to criminals and would-be criminals. The long-term consequence is an increase in crime-rates, and subsequent increase in prison overcrowding. It may be true that we put many more people in prison today than in 1950, but this discounts the fact that crime rates are many more times higher, meaning crime pays better today than ever before!

The same principle applies for anything from chocolate to rock climbing. If you lower the cost of chocolate then more people will eat chocolate. Likewise, if you lower the risks of rock climbing then more people will rock climb. In fact, the total number of rock climbing related deaths can rise, even if you have made rock climbing safer, since so many more people might consequently take it up as a hobby.

My point is that the total number of people in prison can increase, even when you shorten, and make it harder to pass custodial sentences, since so many more people will commit many more crimes. It is not in dispute that prisons are overcrowded. However, my recommendation to reduce overcrowding is to increase the number, length and severity of custodial sentences.

Second, my primary concern is not reoffending rates, but total reoffences. To shift the question to one of reoffending rates, would be to miss the most important function of law enforcement i.e. to reduce total crime, the reduction of reoffending rates is secondary. To that end, custodial sentences are preferrable to "non-custodial sentences," since while in prison criminals commit fewer crimes, and are incapable of preying on innocent members of the public.

Third, I agree that prison isn't working, and that reoffending rates are too high. Therefore, Debbie's reoffending rate in no way "contra-indicates" anything I have written. My original comment was a suggestion of how to rectify that problem, not deny it.

"When it is patently clear that something doesn't work (eg. prison) common sense requires that we look to alternatives. Community sentences (suitable for non-violent offenders) are usually more effective and cost less."

For something that is "common sense," there are certainly very many common people who disagree with you.

Regards,
Lee

"My sincere thanks to Pauline Campbell for your most excellent comments and recommendations. I have profound respect for your understanding of what we need to do in Britain if we are sincere about tackling these problems in our society. " - M.Lin

So are those of us who disagree being insincere?

Assumptions that punitive enforcement against clients of sex workers works go against all the independent evidence we have at present.

Evidence shows:
1) such enforcement makes vulnerable women more vulnerable (irrespective of whether they are on drugs or not).

2) some clients kerb crawl precisely because of risks involved (which include getting caught) and these risks provide part of the thrill-factor. Therefore such measures will be counter-productive.

3) forcing people to address addictive behaviours before they are ready and able can be counter-productive.

4) if sex workers are allowed safe conditions to work, they have a better chance of exiting sex work and a better chance of avoiding violence.