One part of my life that I haven't mentioned up until now is my work for a private ambulance service. This is essentially St. John Ambulance style work but paid. I'm trying to do a fair bit at the moment to get by while looking for a "proper job". After that it will be good to be able to get a bit of additional pocket money, especially if any unforeseen (or foreseen for that matter) expenses crop up.
I was working yesterday in a club that runs on Sunday afternoons. It was quite a surreal experience all round. Usually when I'm in a club, I'm the one partying (this venue being no exception) so first-off it was a bit strange to see the place sober and smelling fresh. To be honest, being in a club sober isn't as bad as I was expecting. I quite like cheesy music anyway and it was nice to emerge richer rather than poorer. As I was wearing a t-shirt with the word, "Medic" all over it I had a laugh with a lot of the patrons who came up and started shooting the shit. The bouncers were nice lads too and were great at keeping an eye on me when things began to look a bit interesting at a couple of points.
One thing that did surprise me was just how loud these places are. I never really noticed before; probably due to the combined effects of alcohol and the fact that it's usually about midnight before I go anywhere near a club. I always carry ear defenders as part of my personal kit, many of my colleagues do the same since you never know when it can get noisy (Notting Hill Carnival and music festivals are the obvious ones but I have been known to use them at football matches and fireworks events too). I'm glad I do now since the volume in this place was ear-splitting. (Why? I appreciate a certain volume creates a party atmosphere but then it's just noise for the sake of noise.) I am now genuinely worried about the effects of previous clubbing experiences on my ears.
In addition to the volume, the prevailing atmosphere in the place was one of a market. I know people don't go clubbing to dance (or for sensibly priced drinks for that matter)... I certainly didn't. The vast majority of people there are there to get drunk, do silly things with their mates and hopefully meet someone to share various levels of intimacy with. So far so good. The scale of the meat market here however was genuinely shocking. To start with, undressed seemed to be the prevailing dress code (fair enough, call it advertising) but what really surprised and disappointed me was things that went on in the club. Firstly there was a period where girls only were allowed on stage (displaying the goods?). To add to this, throughout the event, images of the revellers were projected into large screens along with captions. Fairly frequently, the image would be one of a girl with the caption, "Get your tits out". Many did. Some quickly and without hesitation. Some more slowly and with a bit of mental preparation. Some with the aid of their "mates".
My first reaction to this was, "Brilliant! Boobs!" I am a straight bloke in his 20s after all. I think my girlfriend is gorgeous and I'm very happy with her but I can't help enjoying seeing the female form (for a good description of how us blokes feel, watch Jack Davenport's rant in "Coupling"). However that reaction changed to one of mild disgust after a few seconds. From a legal point of view, would this action not be classed as indecent exposure? It's not uncommon for lads doing the same (getting pissed and pulling their trousers down) to end up on the sex-offenders register. Political points about the CPS focusing their efforts on fundamentally decent people rather than hardened criminals aside, this seems a bit unfair. In addition to this, the "mates" dragging down bras and tops are potentially committing sexual assault.
Legal bit aside what about the social consequences of this? I would not be impressed if my girlfriend did this either while we were together or before. I know anatomically boobs are modified sweat glands surrounded in fat and wrapped in skin however they have very sexual connotations. I like my girlfriend's boobs. They're pretty. What I also like is the intimacy created by being the only person other than her that can see them. Demonstrating to a girl that your a decent guy worth sharing her body with inevitably brings you closer and creates a bond and I think makes the physical stuff more fun. Knowing that everybody and their cousin has seen your girlfriend with her kit off would surely destroy this.
On a wider scale; what sort of messages are these girls sending out. This has been the subject of much debate and controversy in the media. There is a vocal group of commentators saying that ladies should be able to wear what they want and act how they please and anything else is just repressive. This is one point of view but unfortunately nobody lives in a bubble and the actions of individuals has consequences for the environment around them.
Clothing and actions send out messages (why else do we dress smartly for job interviews) and in this case, skimpy clothes and baring breasts sends out a message of sexual availability. As a guy, navigating the minefield that is women in a club is daunting. Many times I have been rebuffed by girls wearing virtually nothing and overtly coveting attention. This is fair enough. I know I'm not blessed with the looks of Sean Connery (although neither am I cursed with the looks of Alex Salmond). Most girls are sweet about it, yet more are polite. Some however (and in my experience usually the ones dressed and acting the most provocatively) are outraged that I have had the temerity and the gall to chat them up. Go figure... I can't. Before I sound like more of a dinosaur than I am, I will say the obvious in that it's a girl's absolute right to reject unwanted advances (as it is a guy's right to do the same). I am simply highlighting that if people choose to seek the attention of others, then they can't be surprised when they receive it.
Most of the time this attention will be harmless flirtation but it worries me that girls, by acting this way, may be exposing themselves not only to rowdy crowds in a club but to great personal risk. Again to clarify, I am not for a second saying that, "she was asking for it" is in any way appropriate as a response to accusations of sexual violence against women. Neither am I saying that men are incapable of restraining their sexual urges. We are. However, to me, it makes sense that coveting the attention of lots of people with overtly sexual displays may well, as an unintended consequence, attract the attention of the wrong sort of person as well. Debates about the rights and wrongs of this statement could rage for eternity and beyond. It is simply my perception of the current situation. Ultimately, it is said because I believe nobody should have to go through the trauma of sexual crimes and a moments consideration of ones actions could prevent this.
I know this post is controversial. I am also aware that I have put a lot of caveats in what I say: not something I am used to and certainly not something my friends would recognise in me. It is done in recognition of the sensitive nature of the topic, my acute awareness of the complexities and an acknowledgement that these are my opinions and I certainly don't claim to be an authority on any of the subjects discussed nor do I claim to have all the answers. I will end on more of a certain note. Girls, for everyone's sake, think about the length of the skirt (they can't be comfortable anyway) and "keep your tits in", unless your my girlfriend... and we're alone... in which case, "get 'em out luv!"
JR
Monday, 8 August 2011
Friday, 5 August 2011
And Finally...
Pubs throughout the world are filled with men who enjoy beer, food, smoking, seducing women (or trying to) and cricket. Until recently, Shane Warne was one of those men. Utterly normal as a bloke apart from his famed cricketing ability.
Not so now. Mr Warne has metamorphosed since starting a relationship with Elizabeth Hurley. He is now an emaciated shadow of his former self. It's a sad day.
When I first found out he was going out with Ms Hurley, my spirits lifted. I'm not a huge fan of celebrity gossip but it was reassuring such a seemingly ordinary lad can win the affections of Liz Hurley... THE Liz Hurley. One of the most beautiful women to grace this planet. I'm sure it gave every straight bloke in the world a confidence boost to know that the pretty girl you have your eye on might just be in your league. It's akin to waking up one day and finding out your flatmate is going out with Pippa Middleton (I will overlook the fact that a contemporary at Uni. recently got married to her sister... apparently he has quite an important granny).
Now he has become a polished metrosexual. Eyebrow shaping... really? From being the guy in the pub that starts a brawl just for the hell of it, he now looks like the guy that legs it into a trendy vodka bar when things start flying (Shane, if you're reading and this isn't the case, my local serves some excellent ale and a decent curry. Let's have a beer... or two...). In short he looks well and truly under the thumb
I suppose any other outcome was a bit much to hope for. If I'm honest with myself, I will admit to being under the thumb as would most of my mates in relationships. It's not a position we cherish but most of the time, it's easier to go along with whatever she wants. We might even be allowed to go to the pub if we're really good. My disappointment comes from the fact that Mr Warne was so nearly a dream come true. Not only did he have a beautiful girlfriend, but he could have continued to be and exemplary typical bloke.
I'm going on a night out with my St. John Ambulance division tonight. Naturally my girlfriend will be there too. I will raise a glass to all us lads under the thumb fighting the confusion of being quietly grateful for a beautiful girlfriend whilst being quietly confused as to just what happened to the bloke we used to be... if I'm allowed to of course!
Not so now. Mr Warne has metamorphosed since starting a relationship with Elizabeth Hurley. He is now an emaciated shadow of his former self. It's a sad day.
When I first found out he was going out with Ms Hurley, my spirits lifted. I'm not a huge fan of celebrity gossip but it was reassuring such a seemingly ordinary lad can win the affections of Liz Hurley... THE Liz Hurley. One of the most beautiful women to grace this planet. I'm sure it gave every straight bloke in the world a confidence boost to know that the pretty girl you have your eye on might just be in your league. It's akin to waking up one day and finding out your flatmate is going out with Pippa Middleton (I will overlook the fact that a contemporary at Uni. recently got married to her sister... apparently he has quite an important granny).
Now he has become a polished metrosexual. Eyebrow shaping... really? From being the guy in the pub that starts a brawl just for the hell of it, he now looks like the guy that legs it into a trendy vodka bar when things start flying (Shane, if you're reading and this isn't the case, my local serves some excellent ale and a decent curry. Let's have a beer... or two...). In short he looks well and truly under the thumb
I suppose any other outcome was a bit much to hope for. If I'm honest with myself, I will admit to being under the thumb as would most of my mates in relationships. It's not a position we cherish but most of the time, it's easier to go along with whatever she wants. We might even be allowed to go to the pub if we're really good. My disappointment comes from the fact that Mr Warne was so nearly a dream come true. Not only did he have a beautiful girlfriend, but he could have continued to be and exemplary typical bloke.
I'm going on a night out with my St. John Ambulance division tonight. Naturally my girlfriend will be there too. I will raise a glass to all us lads under the thumb fighting the confusion of being quietly grateful for a beautiful girlfriend whilst being quietly confused as to just what happened to the bloke we used to be... if I'm allowed to of course!
Secondly
There is a new website that has just been released allowing people to create and sign petitions on government. If enough signatures are collated (100, 000), the issue must be debated by MPs.
I think this is an excellent idea. I know MPs hold constituency surgeries with a view to feeding ideas back to the party and Parliament however I am ashamed to say I have no idea when my local MP holds theirs. I am willing to bet many others are in my situation. Furthermore, anyone who has seen Yes Minister of The Thick of It will know that MPs are rarely fully in control of their actions. Admittedly both programmes have been exaggerated for comedic effect but the point stands that many currents run through the Palace of Westminster and the power of individual MPs are limited. These petitions will at best force the hands of our elected representatives and make them take notice of what we, the electorate, want. At worst they will provide insight into the issues voters care about which will hopefully be used to shape policy.
I have looked at this website. Some of the petitions are very sensible (both ones I agree with and ones I disagree with), others are obviously jokes but nevertheless the opportunity for practical democracy has been created. Unfortunately, a number of topics seem to appear repeatedly. This could lead to some serious issues not passing the signature threshold for debate and undermine the process. Hopefully this is an initial glitch and will be rectified over time. Another alternative would be to reduce the voting threshold to account for this.
Take a look at the site. See what people are creating petitions about. Add your thoughts to the fold.
Hopefully this opportunity will provide fruitful and we can all benefit from it.
JR
I think this is an excellent idea. I know MPs hold constituency surgeries with a view to feeding ideas back to the party and Parliament however I am ashamed to say I have no idea when my local MP holds theirs. I am willing to bet many others are in my situation. Furthermore, anyone who has seen Yes Minister of The Thick of It will know that MPs are rarely fully in control of their actions. Admittedly both programmes have been exaggerated for comedic effect but the point stands that many currents run through the Palace of Westminster and the power of individual MPs are limited. These petitions will at best force the hands of our elected representatives and make them take notice of what we, the electorate, want. At worst they will provide insight into the issues voters care about which will hopefully be used to shape policy.
I have looked at this website. Some of the petitions are very sensible (both ones I agree with and ones I disagree with), others are obviously jokes but nevertheless the opportunity for practical democracy has been created. Unfortunately, a number of topics seem to appear repeatedly. This could lead to some serious issues not passing the signature threshold for debate and undermine the process. Hopefully this is an initial glitch and will be rectified over time. Another alternative would be to reduce the voting threshold to account for this.
Take a look at the site. See what people are creating petitions about. Add your thoughts to the fold.
Hopefully this opportunity will provide fruitful and we can all benefit from it.
JR
Firstly
Three things to talk about today. Two are quite serious, the third a bit more light hearted so I will deal with them in separate posts.
Firstly. According to news reports a man has been shot by Police in North London. In the same incident, a police officer was apparently wounded by a bullet. Reports in all the papers I've read suggest that the dead man is a known gang member. Accounts vary as to the number of shots fired but the consensus so far is that the police officer was shot first prompting their armed colleagues to return fire killing the assailant.
The killing of someone in such circumstances is tragic and we should be grateful that the situation was resolved without further injuries. I very much hope the injured police officer will recover quickly and not be left with any long-term physical or psychological scars.
I am extremely grateful to the police officers of this country who keep the people I care about and me at considerable personal risk. The bravery and commitment of unarmed officers who rush to situations like this is humbling. Praise at the highest level should also be given to the armed officers at the scene. They keep themselves in peak physical condition and train extensively to allow them to operate at their absolute optimum capabilities despite the fact that they fire their weapons so rarely.
What I find shocking is that as soon as an armed officer fires their weapon, they are instantly suspended while the incident is investigated. I am not advocating anybody be given carte blanche to open fire on the streets of Great Britain with no consequences however this practice seems ludicrous. When I started studying law I was introduced to an interesting concept: innocent until proven guilty. The policy of immediate suspension suggests presumed guilt. The stress these officers must face is unimaginable and they have my utmost respect not only for the job they do but for having the courage to do their jobs in the face of such potentially devastating personal consequences.
No doubt there will be outcry from some in the media asking why he wasn't shot in an extremity and disarmed. As far as I am aware this is impossible. Though films portray the hero pulling off incredible shots, I fear reality differs greatly. People taught to shoot in a combat situation are taught to aim at the central mass of the target. This is for the simple reason that they are more likely to hit that than anywhere else especially when under stress. This reduces the risk of stray bullets flying and injuring more people than necessary. Furthermore, being shot in the central mass is more likely to disable the target instantly reducing the risk for all those around. Similar reasons apply to the use of hollow-point bullets. The bullet will cause a lot of damage to the target giving them greater "stopping power" whilst being unlikely to pass through the target and cause injury to those around. In short, "shooting to kill" is an inevitable consequence of police carrying weapons. If someone survives shooting with only wounds then they are lucky but this situation cannot be engineered, especially when the lives of many others are at risk.
The facts above are unpleasant. People will die as a result. Unfortunately, this is a necessary consequence of people arming themselves on the streets of this country. Ultimately, surely it is better the police use force if necessary to protect innocent citizens from those intending to do harm. Yes, mistakes have been made however I believe the police usually make the correct decision and never take it lightly. In short, I am glad we have the police force we do and grateful for the protection they provide.
JR
Firstly. According to news reports a man has been shot by Police in North London. In the same incident, a police officer was apparently wounded by a bullet. Reports in all the papers I've read suggest that the dead man is a known gang member. Accounts vary as to the number of shots fired but the consensus so far is that the police officer was shot first prompting their armed colleagues to return fire killing the assailant.
The killing of someone in such circumstances is tragic and we should be grateful that the situation was resolved without further injuries. I very much hope the injured police officer will recover quickly and not be left with any long-term physical or psychological scars.
I am extremely grateful to the police officers of this country who keep the people I care about and me at considerable personal risk. The bravery and commitment of unarmed officers who rush to situations like this is humbling. Praise at the highest level should also be given to the armed officers at the scene. They keep themselves in peak physical condition and train extensively to allow them to operate at their absolute optimum capabilities despite the fact that they fire their weapons so rarely.
What I find shocking is that as soon as an armed officer fires their weapon, they are instantly suspended while the incident is investigated. I am not advocating anybody be given carte blanche to open fire on the streets of Great Britain with no consequences however this practice seems ludicrous. When I started studying law I was introduced to an interesting concept: innocent until proven guilty. The policy of immediate suspension suggests presumed guilt. The stress these officers must face is unimaginable and they have my utmost respect not only for the job they do but for having the courage to do their jobs in the face of such potentially devastating personal consequences.
No doubt there will be outcry from some in the media asking why he wasn't shot in an extremity and disarmed. As far as I am aware this is impossible. Though films portray the hero pulling off incredible shots, I fear reality differs greatly. People taught to shoot in a combat situation are taught to aim at the central mass of the target. This is for the simple reason that they are more likely to hit that than anywhere else especially when under stress. This reduces the risk of stray bullets flying and injuring more people than necessary. Furthermore, being shot in the central mass is more likely to disable the target instantly reducing the risk for all those around. Similar reasons apply to the use of hollow-point bullets. The bullet will cause a lot of damage to the target giving them greater "stopping power" whilst being unlikely to pass through the target and cause injury to those around. In short, "shooting to kill" is an inevitable consequence of police carrying weapons. If someone survives shooting with only wounds then they are lucky but this situation cannot be engineered, especially when the lives of many others are at risk.
The facts above are unpleasant. People will die as a result. Unfortunately, this is a necessary consequence of people arming themselves on the streets of this country. Ultimately, surely it is better the police use force if necessary to protect innocent citizens from those intending to do harm. Yes, mistakes have been made however I believe the police usually make the correct decision and never take it lightly. In short, I am glad we have the police force we do and grateful for the protection they provide.
JR
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Prisons
Recent articles in the press have focused a lot on prisons. Firstly, the mother of Charlie Gilmour (son of Pink Floyd guitarist caught swinging from the cenotaph and attacking a Royal Convoy) has been outspoken in the criticism of his sentence. Secondly, the former labour MP Jim Devine has just been released (looking much better for it) prompting an article by Jonathan Aitken on adjusting to post-prison life. Looking further into the past, there was the controversy caused by Ken Clarke when discussing sentencing reforms.
Prisons are something I have always been curious about. Part of me has always wondered if I would survive being locked up (that said, I don't intend to find out). Ever since I can remember, I have had strong views on the subject of punishment and how it should be used. Consequently, when the opportunity for I prison tour arose as part of my legal studies I took it. Let me say from the off; they are not nice places. The cells would be cramped for one person, they house two. There is no privacy. Curtains meant for the purpose have almost invariably been torn down in failed suicide attempts. Doors always being shut means it smells. Inmates are locked up for most of the day (up to 23 hours) with meals being eaten inside the cells. Concrete and bare surfaces dominate. The atmosphere is electric. Although I never once felt directly at risk during the visit I got the impression I was in a tinder box awaiting a spark. Anybody who compares prison to a hotel is very much mistaken.
That said, there are some aspects of prison life that do leave themselves open to question. The food allowance per inmate is greater than the food allowance for soldiers on the front line. They have free access to a fully-stocked gymn with fitness instructors. Television is provided as a matter of routine with it only being removed in special circumstances (whether there is anything worth watching is a subject for lengthier discussion). Working or undertaking learning in the prison environment - as far as I can tell - is optional however inmates are allocated allowances based on behaviour ranging from £5 per week to up to £50 per week which can either be saved, used in the prison tuck shop or spent on items such as games consoles. Staff are also forced to bend over backwards for inmates who know how to play the system. This seems a shame since the attitude of the staff I spoke to was exemplary. Their view was that the loss of liberty was the punishment and they were there to keep things running smoothly and ensure everyone was safe. The respect they showed for inmates was genuine and not dictated by a government directive and, in my view, is an extremely healthy part of the system. By treating people as people and not commodities, they will hopefully engender some self-respect and the desire to change.
I believe prison has three goals: punishment, public protection and rehabilitation. They seem obvious but it's worth stating anyway. The problem arises in the way that these are administered. To start with, I think short sentences are counter-productive. I have no access to official statistics but I know from anecdotal experience of working in a criminal defence law firm that individuals can be imprisoned repeatedly for short periods. These sentences are usually for similar offences and upon release, similar behaviour usually starts again. I believe that short sentences are not sufficiently harsh to act as a deterrent (more an occupational hazard to quote the title sequences of "Porridge") to the offender or others. Furthermore, short sentences do not give sufficient time for an individual to make use of rehabilitation services within the prison.
As mentioned previously. Prison should be a punishment. It should also be there to protect the law-abiding public from criminals. I think longer sentences would have the dual role of reducing re-offending and deterring would-be criminals from such acts. People, I think, would be less likely to commit crime if faced with the loss of a substantial chunk of their life. To this end, I also think that life should mean life in the most serious of cases. Anything less undermines the severity of the punishment. In the same vein I would question the use of open prisons for anything other than offenders in the last few months of a long sentence as a means of integration into the outside world.
The implementation of sentences also needs reform. Concurrent terms in my view are pointless. This is where multiple offences have been committed by one individual. Sentences for each offence are given however the Judge orders they run concurrently. To my mind, this is not only pointless but unjust as it will make no material difference to the offender who will simply serve the longest one. Although the academic distinction is there, I doubt many people would spend much time considering it. In a similar vein, I think the routine early release of offenders makes a mockery of the Justice system. Why would people take a Judge seriously when they openly say one thing yet implicitly mean another? This contradiction seems short-sighted. Early release has the power to be an excellent tool as the ultimate reward for those that show consistently exemplary behaviour and energetic commitment to rehabilitation. It should be a privilege, not a right.
Rehabilitation seems to me to be an important step in the prison process and in the prevention of re-offending. It should be a process of education and growth. One of the obvious starting points would be to assist new inmates in breaking substance abuse habits be it drugs, alcohol or smoking. Sadly, I suspect lack of resources come into play here as they do with most healthcare initiatives. Some might suggest prisoners should go cold-turkey however the process of substance withdrawal is so excruciating that this can only rightly be regarded as torture. What's more, placing people in this desperate situation will only fuel the trade in contraband. Contact, where appropriate, with victims should also be encouraged to promote understanding of the consequences of the crimes committed.
Education in the traditional sense is also essential. As well as an opportunity to beat destructive addictions, prison should be an opportunity for individuals to gain the skills necessary to function in and contribute to society. This starts with basic literacy and numeracy and extend to vocational training. To complement this, ties need to be formed with outside agencies so that those leaving prison with skills have the opportunity to put them to use outside and experience direct benefit from them. Local councils employing prison trained mechanics would be an obvious example but there are many others. The advantages to the individual are obvious; not only are there the fiscal benefits of being employable on the outside, I would guess that there would be psychological benefits as well. I also think the state would benefit as, by investing in training and rehabilitation, they would hopefully reduce re-offending and therefore the cost not only of housing prisoners but also of the prior judicial process. Naturally, the rewards of participating in rehabilitation during a sentence should not be confined to the period after sentencing but should have positive consequences for the inmate during the sentence. Strategies like this exist already but unfortunately they are expensive, short-sentences mean that individuals who could benefit are not in a position to do so to any great degree and the links with the outside world are not as strong as they could be.
As an aside, I read of one prison recently that has opened a restaurant run by prisoners in their grounds. This seems like an ideal solution as it confers a skill, a sense of purpose and (by working during the sentence) the possibility of a decent reference on release. It will be interesting to see if this scheme does affect re-offending in those that have had the opportunity to partake in it. Other ideas for such enterprises could be very interesting and, if successful, potentially offset the costs of the enterprise its self.
I know a lot of these ideas are not particularly new, nor revolutionary. They are also based on my opinions based on a limited experience of working in a firm specialising in this area of law and my own observations however I do not think they are without merit.
Will try and write something amusing soon.
JR
Prisons are something I have always been curious about. Part of me has always wondered if I would survive being locked up (that said, I don't intend to find out). Ever since I can remember, I have had strong views on the subject of punishment and how it should be used. Consequently, when the opportunity for I prison tour arose as part of my legal studies I took it. Let me say from the off; they are not nice places. The cells would be cramped for one person, they house two. There is no privacy. Curtains meant for the purpose have almost invariably been torn down in failed suicide attempts. Doors always being shut means it smells. Inmates are locked up for most of the day (up to 23 hours) with meals being eaten inside the cells. Concrete and bare surfaces dominate. The atmosphere is electric. Although I never once felt directly at risk during the visit I got the impression I was in a tinder box awaiting a spark. Anybody who compares prison to a hotel is very much mistaken.
That said, there are some aspects of prison life that do leave themselves open to question. The food allowance per inmate is greater than the food allowance for soldiers on the front line. They have free access to a fully-stocked gymn with fitness instructors. Television is provided as a matter of routine with it only being removed in special circumstances (whether there is anything worth watching is a subject for lengthier discussion). Working or undertaking learning in the prison environment - as far as I can tell - is optional however inmates are allocated allowances based on behaviour ranging from £5 per week to up to £50 per week which can either be saved, used in the prison tuck shop or spent on items such as games consoles. Staff are also forced to bend over backwards for inmates who know how to play the system. This seems a shame since the attitude of the staff I spoke to was exemplary. Their view was that the loss of liberty was the punishment and they were there to keep things running smoothly and ensure everyone was safe. The respect they showed for inmates was genuine and not dictated by a government directive and, in my view, is an extremely healthy part of the system. By treating people as people and not commodities, they will hopefully engender some self-respect and the desire to change.
I believe prison has three goals: punishment, public protection and rehabilitation. They seem obvious but it's worth stating anyway. The problem arises in the way that these are administered. To start with, I think short sentences are counter-productive. I have no access to official statistics but I know from anecdotal experience of working in a criminal defence law firm that individuals can be imprisoned repeatedly for short periods. These sentences are usually for similar offences and upon release, similar behaviour usually starts again. I believe that short sentences are not sufficiently harsh to act as a deterrent (more an occupational hazard to quote the title sequences of "Porridge") to the offender or others. Furthermore, short sentences do not give sufficient time for an individual to make use of rehabilitation services within the prison.
As mentioned previously. Prison should be a punishment. It should also be there to protect the law-abiding public from criminals. I think longer sentences would have the dual role of reducing re-offending and deterring would-be criminals from such acts. People, I think, would be less likely to commit crime if faced with the loss of a substantial chunk of their life. To this end, I also think that life should mean life in the most serious of cases. Anything less undermines the severity of the punishment. In the same vein I would question the use of open prisons for anything other than offenders in the last few months of a long sentence as a means of integration into the outside world.
The implementation of sentences also needs reform. Concurrent terms in my view are pointless. This is where multiple offences have been committed by one individual. Sentences for each offence are given however the Judge orders they run concurrently. To my mind, this is not only pointless but unjust as it will make no material difference to the offender who will simply serve the longest one. Although the academic distinction is there, I doubt many people would spend much time considering it. In a similar vein, I think the routine early release of offenders makes a mockery of the Justice system. Why would people take a Judge seriously when they openly say one thing yet implicitly mean another? This contradiction seems short-sighted. Early release has the power to be an excellent tool as the ultimate reward for those that show consistently exemplary behaviour and energetic commitment to rehabilitation. It should be a privilege, not a right.
Rehabilitation seems to me to be an important step in the prison process and in the prevention of re-offending. It should be a process of education and growth. One of the obvious starting points would be to assist new inmates in breaking substance abuse habits be it drugs, alcohol or smoking. Sadly, I suspect lack of resources come into play here as they do with most healthcare initiatives. Some might suggest prisoners should go cold-turkey however the process of substance withdrawal is so excruciating that this can only rightly be regarded as torture. What's more, placing people in this desperate situation will only fuel the trade in contraband. Contact, where appropriate, with victims should also be encouraged to promote understanding of the consequences of the crimes committed.
Education in the traditional sense is also essential. As well as an opportunity to beat destructive addictions, prison should be an opportunity for individuals to gain the skills necessary to function in and contribute to society. This starts with basic literacy and numeracy and extend to vocational training. To complement this, ties need to be formed with outside agencies so that those leaving prison with skills have the opportunity to put them to use outside and experience direct benefit from them. Local councils employing prison trained mechanics would be an obvious example but there are many others. The advantages to the individual are obvious; not only are there the fiscal benefits of being employable on the outside, I would guess that there would be psychological benefits as well. I also think the state would benefit as, by investing in training and rehabilitation, they would hopefully reduce re-offending and therefore the cost not only of housing prisoners but also of the prior judicial process. Naturally, the rewards of participating in rehabilitation during a sentence should not be confined to the period after sentencing but should have positive consequences for the inmate during the sentence. Strategies like this exist already but unfortunately they are expensive, short-sentences mean that individuals who could benefit are not in a position to do so to any great degree and the links with the outside world are not as strong as they could be.
As an aside, I read of one prison recently that has opened a restaurant run by prisoners in their grounds. This seems like an ideal solution as it confers a skill, a sense of purpose and (by working during the sentence) the possibility of a decent reference on release. It will be interesting to see if this scheme does affect re-offending in those that have had the opportunity to partake in it. Other ideas for such enterprises could be very interesting and, if successful, potentially offset the costs of the enterprise its self.
I know a lot of these ideas are not particularly new, nor revolutionary. They are also based on my opinions based on a limited experience of working in a firm specialising in this area of law and my own observations however I do not think they are without merit.
Will try and write something amusing soon.
JR
Monday, 1 August 2011
Cyclists!
Not a particularly new topic for discussion here. Many have written on the subject; probably with more intelligence and more humour that I will but here's my opinion anyway. To start with, let me say that I believe (for the sake of my faith in humanity as much as anything else) that it is a minority of cyclists giving the rest a bad name. Their antics such as ignoring red lights, cycling on the pavement, cycling in the middle of the road or two or three abreast, cycling up the inside of larger vehicles and ignoring one-way signs range from infuriating to dangerous to themselves and those around them.
Recently, I was crossing a pelican crossing with the green man showing when a cyclist ran into me at full tilt. To compound matters, he then gave me an ear-full of verbal abuse for having the temerity to block his passage. Now in this case, he ran into a big, ugly Scotsman. As a result he went flying off his bike at whatever speed he was doing and got grated along the road for a few feet; I got a bruise on my leg and a couple of scratches on my hand. It's safe to say he came off worse (karma perhaps?). However, if he ran into my mother who is a lot smaller than me, I'm willing to be she would be the loser in that encounter but would escape with minor to moderate injuries. If he ran into someone more frail than either of us, the results could easily be fatal. If a car had been involved, there would almost certainly have been criminal action. As a cyclist was involved, he got up and cycled away.
What shocks me is the type of people that commit this behaviour. I have friends that will freely admit to running red lights when they would otherwise class themselves as having unimpeachable integrity; they wouldn't dream of lighting up in an indoor space and tell shopkeepers if they have been given too much change. I have lost a lot of respect for them. Some of the justifications given for breaking the law defy belief (again from supposedly intelligent individuals). Examples are, "It takes ages to build up momentum on a bike." Surely that is a known consequence of their chosen form of transport? To my mind, that logic is as flawed as those that refuse to pay for petrol because it's quite pricey (or demanding that employers shouldn't expect cyclists to work as many hours because their commute takes longer than it otherwise would). Such things should be taken into consideration when making a choice as to which form of transport to use.
In my mind, there is a fairly straightforward answer. Introduce mandatory identification of bicycles with associated competency testing and mandatory insurance: essentially number plates and cycling proficiency tests. To start with, the licencing of motor vehicles means we already have the infrastructure to produce number plates and monitor ownership. Doing this would hopefully end the effective immunity cyclists have from the law at the moment by allowing offenders to be instantly and easily identified. This in turn should allow police officers to enforce the laws regarding cycling and citizens to report any abuses they see with a fair hope of identifying the culprit. Punitive measures aside, hopefully it would cause the cyclists breaking the law to realise their actions have consequences.
As well as promoting legal use of the roads and allowing the smoother flow of traffic (less sudden breaking because a cyclist has just flown up on the inside) these measures would reduce the number of accidents both caused by the careless cycling and caused by emergency vehicles racing to get to the scene of said accidents (rare but they do happen despite the excellent training given by ambulance services). Would this in turn not have a positive effect on the country as a whole: fewer people grieving the loss of a loved-one, fewer days work lost to the economy due to injuries, NHS savings from not having to piece an unfortunate cyclist back together, savings by the state as fewer people need long term care due to disabilities caused by cycling injuries. These are a few advantages that I see. There are probably many more, some obvious, some less so. The conclusion remains the same. Regulation of cycling seems the only sensible option in this day and age. It would increase the number of people cycling sensibly with a raft of other benefits.
Hopefully someone will see this and either be in a position to make it happen or provide an explanation of why it wouldn't work (and saying it could result in fewer people cycling is not a reason. If that means fewer morons endangering themselves and others then that is a worthwhile end in its self).
JR
Recently, I was crossing a pelican crossing with the green man showing when a cyclist ran into me at full tilt. To compound matters, he then gave me an ear-full of verbal abuse for having the temerity to block his passage. Now in this case, he ran into a big, ugly Scotsman. As a result he went flying off his bike at whatever speed he was doing and got grated along the road for a few feet; I got a bruise on my leg and a couple of scratches on my hand. It's safe to say he came off worse (karma perhaps?). However, if he ran into my mother who is a lot smaller than me, I'm willing to be she would be the loser in that encounter but would escape with minor to moderate injuries. If he ran into someone more frail than either of us, the results could easily be fatal. If a car had been involved, there would almost certainly have been criminal action. As a cyclist was involved, he got up and cycled away.
What shocks me is the type of people that commit this behaviour. I have friends that will freely admit to running red lights when they would otherwise class themselves as having unimpeachable integrity; they wouldn't dream of lighting up in an indoor space and tell shopkeepers if they have been given too much change. I have lost a lot of respect for them. Some of the justifications given for breaking the law defy belief (again from supposedly intelligent individuals). Examples are, "It takes ages to build up momentum on a bike." Surely that is a known consequence of their chosen form of transport? To my mind, that logic is as flawed as those that refuse to pay for petrol because it's quite pricey (or demanding that employers shouldn't expect cyclists to work as many hours because their commute takes longer than it otherwise would). Such things should be taken into consideration when making a choice as to which form of transport to use.
In my mind, there is a fairly straightforward answer. Introduce mandatory identification of bicycles with associated competency testing and mandatory insurance: essentially number plates and cycling proficiency tests. To start with, the licencing of motor vehicles means we already have the infrastructure to produce number plates and monitor ownership. Doing this would hopefully end the effective immunity cyclists have from the law at the moment by allowing offenders to be instantly and easily identified. This in turn should allow police officers to enforce the laws regarding cycling and citizens to report any abuses they see with a fair hope of identifying the culprit. Punitive measures aside, hopefully it would cause the cyclists breaking the law to realise their actions have consequences.
As well as promoting legal use of the roads and allowing the smoother flow of traffic (less sudden breaking because a cyclist has just flown up on the inside) these measures would reduce the number of accidents both caused by the careless cycling and caused by emergency vehicles racing to get to the scene of said accidents (rare but they do happen despite the excellent training given by ambulance services). Would this in turn not have a positive effect on the country as a whole: fewer people grieving the loss of a loved-one, fewer days work lost to the economy due to injuries, NHS savings from not having to piece an unfortunate cyclist back together, savings by the state as fewer people need long term care due to disabilities caused by cycling injuries. These are a few advantages that I see. There are probably many more, some obvious, some less so. The conclusion remains the same. Regulation of cycling seems the only sensible option in this day and age. It would increase the number of people cycling sensibly with a raft of other benefits.
Hopefully someone will see this and either be in a position to make it happen or provide an explanation of why it wouldn't work (and saying it could result in fewer people cycling is not a reason. If that means fewer morons endangering themselves and others then that is a worthwhile end in its self).
JR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)