On Sat, 10 May 2008 15:51:41 +0100, Cynic
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 May 2008 10:02:13 +0100, MM wrote:
>
>>>>We do indeed. Am I not always saying so? But now the police intend to
>>>>get tough with known troublemakers and everyone is up in arms!
>>>
>>>Mainly because experience tells me that they will leave the *real*
>>>troublemakers alone and harrass the youngsters who rarely cause
>>>significant problems.
>>
>>Well, that is because they are not addressing the targets accurately,
>>not because of the zero-tolerancing policy itself (which is what this
>>amounts to).
>
>The way to address the troublemakers is to gather sufficient evidence
>to get them convicted of their crimes. I know that that might be
>harder work than harrassing innocent youths, but it is what the police
>are paid to do.
>
>>>It is certainly not a technique that will make anyone's behaviour any
>>>better, and is very likely to make them justifiably upset and lead to
>>>greater antisocial behaviour.
>
>>So we do absolutely nothing and allow the intimidation, burglary,
>>criminal damage, antisocial behaviour and vehicle crime to carry on as
>>per usual?
>
>I'm a bit old-fashioned. I believe that the police should catch
>people who are actually committing crimes and get them convicted.
>Your preference is to take their photographs and try to annoy them
>without worrying overly much whether they are in fact guilty of any
>crime.
I say we should suck it and see. Until this exercise has had a
reasonable period of trial, we won't know whether it will have any
effect. I presume it will have a positive effect, since it did in
other places, like New York, for example.
But simply doing nothing is not a solution.
MM |