I was bought up in a period when the physical chastisement of children was the norm. If you were naughty in school you would be caned by the headmaster; if you were naughty outside school you would get the belt from your Dad. When I was a youngster I felt that the system was cruel, unjust and arbitrary. I was caned and belted for things that I either hadn't done or for things which I hadn't considered particularly bad when I did them.
I generally support the abolition of the physical chastisement of children.
If I went home after school and told my Dad that I had been given the cane by my headmaster I would have received a second beating from him for bringing the family into disrepute. If I was told by my son that he had been beaten by his headmaster in the way that I was beaten by mine I'd throttle the headmaster!
But I am confused by the alternatives.
One of the things I was punished for both at school and at home was an I'll show you mine if you show me yours incident with a younger neighbourhood girl, when I was about ten or eleven years old.
Yesterday two young boys of a similar age were in the Old Bailey accused of rape, convicted of attempted rape and have had their names put on the sexual offenders register for similar naughtiness!
That is not a reasonable alternative to the cane, the belt and the birch of my childhood.
If we want to abolish the corporal punishment of children we must find an alternative way of dealing with naughtiness that doesn't involve the draconian use of the criminal law and the courts in the sickening way that this case has done.
These two boys were very naughty boys, without any doubt, they deserve to be punished, but they are not attempted rapists or sex offenders or even criminals!
They would have deserved six of the best 40 years ago, they don't deserve to be criminalised today – I oppose both. But what the happy medium between the two options is I don't know, but it is a subject that must be discussed and resolved if we want to remain a civilised society.
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
25/05/2010
08/11/2009
Is being a child a criminal offence?
A long, long time ago, before most of my readers were born, I use to play ball in the street with my mates. I couldn't understand adults who complained about our play. What harm were we doing? What was wrong with having a bit of fun? Those adults who, when asked can I have my ball back? said NO and ranted about the damage caused to their Prize Dahlias appeared to be unreasonable, miserable and sad.
Occasionally accidents happened, a broken window, an adult hurt by a wild ball, a newly cleaned car dirtied, and there might be consequences if dad was told. Sent to bed, pocket money stopped or, in the most extreme circumstances, a smacked bottom. All such sanctions appeared unjust because we were just having fun.
My father, my grandfather, my great grandfather and all my ancestors back to Adam's lads probably went through the same experience of not understanding why adults complained about boys having a bit of fun.
Now that I am a Miserable Old Fart, I understand and sympathise with those long dead miserable old farts who complained about my ball playing on the streets and I can emmpathise with the residents of Penmaenmawr who complain about kids playing football by the Spar shop in the village.
However, what I can't understand is the attitude of the Police towards the kids playing ball on the street in Penmaenmawr:
Playing ball inappropriately is not criminal, it is naughty. Naughty children should be dealt with at home or in school, not by the police and the courts.
When naughty children are treated as criminals, childhood is made into a criminal offence. And if just being a child is seen to be a criminal offence then there is no hope for naughty boys to grow up to be law abiding adults.
Occasionally accidents happened, a broken window, an adult hurt by a wild ball, a newly cleaned car dirtied, and there might be consequences if dad was told. Sent to bed, pocket money stopped or, in the most extreme circumstances, a smacked bottom. All such sanctions appeared unjust because we were just having fun.
My father, my grandfather, my great grandfather and all my ancestors back to Adam's lads probably went through the same experience of not understanding why adults complained about boys having a bit of fun.
Now that I am a Miserable Old Fart, I understand and sympathise with those long dead miserable old farts who complained about my ball playing on the streets and I can emmpathise with the residents of Penmaenmawr who complain about kids playing football by the Spar shop in the village.
However, what I can't understand is the attitude of the Police towards the kids playing ball on the street in Penmaenmawr:
YOUNGSTERS caught playing football on the streets of Penmaenmawr risk being arrested and could face a criminal record. .... "There is a specific offence for playing games in the highway causing annoyance to road users." ..... "This is an arrestable offence and from this moment on, this is the approach we will be using. ..."This behaviour can land them with a criminal record. It’s only fair to give them all a warning first that they will face arrest if caught again".So a child will face arrest, a criminal record and prohibition for life from any job that needs full disclosure for playing ball on the street twice? What is the world coming to?
Playing ball inappropriately is not criminal, it is naughty. Naughty children should be dealt with at home or in school, not by the police and the courts.
When naughty children are treated as criminals, childhood is made into a criminal offence. And if just being a child is seen to be a criminal offence then there is no hope for naughty boys to grow up to be law abiding adults.
22/04/2008
Is the USA it's own Worst enemy?
I am not a big fan of American novels. I have never been to the USA, so many of the cultural references are alien to me, I don't know what a condo is, or a clam bake and if I was asked if I understood my Miranda rights I would have to answer No!.
However, I bought a few John Grisham books in a charitable car boot sale (an Americanism that seems to have killed the native jumble sale) a few weeks ago. John Grisham is one of the most popular novelists in and from the USA, he writes books about the American legal system. The legal system portrayed is totally corrupt!
Juries are vetted by multi million dollar experts, not in order to create balance, but in order to insure bias for the highest bidder. Guilt and innocence is decided, not by justice, but by money. Policemen, lawyers, judges and witnesses are routinely murdered in order to pervert the course of justice, and when that fails jury members and judges are bought or threatened in order to secure a favorable outcome for the wrongdoer.
Its not just Mr Grisham's books that portray the US in such a poor light. I don't know how many films that I have seen where people have been found innocent by a court but are perceived to be guilty and are then executed by a hero in the name of justice!
I have a Playstation game, thrown in as a bundle when the machine was bought. Liberty City Stories has, amongst the missions in the game, murdering the mayor in order to create a by election; installing a candidate favorable to a drug dealing gang; killing canvassers for the opposing candidate and destroying ballot papers. All of these activities are perceived as positive and give credit in the game.
Outside the realm of fiction, in news reports, we are told about a different America. An America where democracy, freedom and the rule of law are paramount. An America that wishes to export these values to the rest of the world.
Which image portrays the truth about the USA is, to a certain extent, unimportant. What is important is which image is perceived to be true. Because American culture is all prevailing, the image of the US that most of us have is the fictional image.
If Wales was portrayed in a less than favorable light in a book, a film or a game, I would be up in arms! I would be writing to the press, I would be calling for a boycott, I would be protesting on the streets. I would hope that the Welsh (and parts of the UK) press would be writing articles saying No Wales isn't like that!
Why don't Americans protest about books, films and games that portray their country as foul and corrupt? Why do they give literary and film awards to those who portray their country as a corrupt, unjust and undemocratic nation?
If the America portrayed by popular culture is the true America, then the USA needs to have a good look at itself and reform within. The America of the books, games and films is no better than Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe!
If the true America is the one where democracy, freedom and the rule of law is paramount, then the USA desperately needs to get to grips with the way in which it portrays itself in popular culture. Giving awards to books, such as Grisham's, tells the world that his image of a corrupt USA is true image and that the US of A is proud of the fact!
However, I bought a few John Grisham books in a charitable car boot sale (an Americanism that seems to have killed the native jumble sale) a few weeks ago. John Grisham is one of the most popular novelists in and from the USA, he writes books about the American legal system. The legal system portrayed is totally corrupt!
Juries are vetted by multi million dollar experts, not in order to create balance, but in order to insure bias for the highest bidder. Guilt and innocence is decided, not by justice, but by money. Policemen, lawyers, judges and witnesses are routinely murdered in order to pervert the course of justice, and when that fails jury members and judges are bought or threatened in order to secure a favorable outcome for the wrongdoer.
Its not just Mr Grisham's books that portray the US in such a poor light. I don't know how many films that I have seen where people have been found innocent by a court but are perceived to be guilty and are then executed by a hero in the name of justice!
I have a Playstation game, thrown in as a bundle when the machine was bought. Liberty City Stories has, amongst the missions in the game, murdering the mayor in order to create a by election; installing a candidate favorable to a drug dealing gang; killing canvassers for the opposing candidate and destroying ballot papers. All of these activities are perceived as positive and give credit in the game.
Outside the realm of fiction, in news reports, we are told about a different America. An America where democracy, freedom and the rule of law are paramount. An America that wishes to export these values to the rest of the world.
Which image portrays the truth about the USA is, to a certain extent, unimportant. What is important is which image is perceived to be true. Because American culture is all prevailing, the image of the US that most of us have is the fictional image.
If Wales was portrayed in a less than favorable light in a book, a film or a game, I would be up in arms! I would be writing to the press, I would be calling for a boycott, I would be protesting on the streets. I would hope that the Welsh (and parts of the UK) press would be writing articles saying No Wales isn't like that!
Why don't Americans protest about books, films and games that portray their country as foul and corrupt? Why do they give literary and film awards to those who portray their country as a corrupt, unjust and undemocratic nation?
If the America portrayed by popular culture is the true America, then the USA needs to have a good look at itself and reform within. The America of the books, games and films is no better than Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe!
If the true America is the one where democracy, freedom and the rule of law is paramount, then the USA desperately needs to get to grips with the way in which it portrays itself in popular culture. Giving awards to books, such as Grisham's, tells the world that his image of a corrupt USA is true image and that the US of A is proud of the fact!
21/01/2008
Fine for the rich
On his excellent blog Wales World Nation,* Jeff Rees gives an example of a fair system of fines that exists in Norway.
A millionaire real-estate magnate and art dealer from Setesdal in southern Norway has been fined NOK 425,000 (USD 85,000) for drunk driving, and been further required to chop wood for 30 days.
In the fall of 2006, Kjetil Uleberg, 55, had enjoyed an evening with his friends drinking red wine until past midnight. The next morning, he got into his car to drive to a business meeting. When he was stopped by the police, he was required to take a breath test, which showed him to have a blood alcohol level of 0.7. The legal limit in Norway is 0.2.
In Norway, fines for drunk driving are based on the driver’s income, which meant Uleberg ended up with a whopper of a bill for his hangover.
If I remember rightly, Mrs Thatcher's government trialed such a fair fines policy in England & Wales, where offenders were fined points rather than pounds. The amount you paid per point was based on your income.
Unfortunately the trial failed. Those who could afford good accountants to "prove" that they had little or no income to pay tax on, used the same accounts to prove that they should pay the lowest level of pounds per point if they were fined. Those who were too poor to pay accountants paid the most pounds per point.
It may be an iniquity of the capitalist system, but it is a fact that a person who is £5 million pounds in debt is richer than the person with £500 in savings in all aspects of financial life other than accountancy.
I would be interested to know how (or if) the Norwegian system overcomes this accounting problem.
(* Jeff translates his site's title as Cymru Gwlad Fydol which actually means Wales a Worldly Nation. Worldliness is a sin Cymru - Gwlad Byd Eang might be a more appropriate translation).
A millionaire real-estate magnate and art dealer from Setesdal in southern Norway has been fined NOK 425,000 (USD 85,000) for drunk driving, and been further required to chop wood for 30 days.
In the fall of 2006, Kjetil Uleberg, 55, had enjoyed an evening with his friends drinking red wine until past midnight. The next morning, he got into his car to drive to a business meeting. When he was stopped by the police, he was required to take a breath test, which showed him to have a blood alcohol level of 0.7. The legal limit in Norway is 0.2.
In Norway, fines for drunk driving are based on the driver’s income, which meant Uleberg ended up with a whopper of a bill for his hangover.
If I remember rightly, Mrs Thatcher's government trialed such a fair fines policy in England & Wales, where offenders were fined points rather than pounds. The amount you paid per point was based on your income.
Unfortunately the trial failed. Those who could afford good accountants to "prove" that they had little or no income to pay tax on, used the same accounts to prove that they should pay the lowest level of pounds per point if they were fined. Those who were too poor to pay accountants paid the most pounds per point.
It may be an iniquity of the capitalist system, but it is a fact that a person who is £5 million pounds in debt is richer than the person with £500 in savings in all aspects of financial life other than accountancy.
I would be interested to know how (or if) the Norwegian system overcomes this accounting problem.
(* Jeff translates his site's title as Cymru Gwlad Fydol which actually means Wales a Worldly Nation. Worldliness is a sin Cymru - Gwlad Byd Eang might be a more appropriate translation).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)