Oldjohnw wrote: ↑28 Jul 2021, 10:53am
And how insulting to the decent men and women who sweep our streets and do other menial work to discover that the PM thinks this is really only for criminals who we will make a spectacle of.
Levelling up, indeed!
That is a good point - if Hi-Viz becomes generally regarded as indicating you are doing a "Community Payback" (as most people wont be stopping to read any text printed on the back of your hi-viz waistcoat). It could turn Hi-Viz into a socially unacceptable "under punishment" public signal with associated overtones for those working on and around our streets and those using Hi-Viz for safety reasons.
Yet another not properly thought through initiative from Johnson.
I think the likelihood that the general public will come to associate all hi-viz with "community" punishment is somewhere less than tiny.
Giving non-custodial sentences greater credibility is rather more demanding. Perhaps the government's motivation might be explored. I think this is rather like mental health care-in-the-community: the Victorian asylums = a bad thing and they were closed, without the necessary investment in the alternatives. Likewise, effective non-custodial sentences eg probation need serious money. I've no figures but I suspect that one of the hidden features of the various unpaid work schemes is non-completion. Only a hunch but I suspect that public humiliation may be quite a powerful motivation for not turning up. So, an anglicised version of Cool Hand Luke may impress some, but the likelihood of it working - in the sense of preventing recidivism - is not great.
thirdcrank wrote: ↑29 Jul 2021, 9:48am
I think the likelihood that the general public will come to associate all hi-viz with "community" punishment is somewhere less than tiny.
Giving non-custodial sentences greater credibility is rather more demanding. Perhaps the government's motivation might be explored. I think this is rather like mental health care-in-the-community: the Victorian asylums = a bad thing and they were closed, without the necessary investment in the alternatives. Likewise, effective non-custodial sentences eg probation need serious money. I've no figures but I suspect that one of the hidden features of the various unpaid work schemes is non-completion. Only a hunch but I suspect that public humiliation may be quite a powerful motivation for not turning up. So, an anglicised version of Cool Hand Luke may impress some, but the likelihood of it working - in the sense of preventing recidivism - is not great.
The main benefit of unpaid work is to the firms who profit off of it.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.” ― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Last time round, if memory serves me, the government wanted charities to do it all. When the charities largely refused because they viewed it as both unproductive and wrong, the measure quietly fizzled out.
Around here, the prominent unpaid work seems to be litter picking on roadside verges - something that would need hi-viz anyway. I'm at a bit of a loss to see how any private company would profit from something like this litter picking which otherwise wouldn't be done at all (I do know that failing Grayling privatised a lot of the Probation Service and that private companies sought to profit from that but it's not the same thing.)
thirdcrank wrote: ↑29 Jul 2021, 10:10am
Around here, the prominent unpaid work seems to be litter picking on roadside verges - something that would need hi-viz anyway. I'm at a bit of a loss to see how any private company would profit from something like this litter picking which otherwise wouldn't be done at all (I do know that failing Grayling privatised a lot of the Probation Service and that private companies sought to profit from that but it's not the same thing.)
It is funny - funny peculiar - how some British politicians turn to the US for their inspiration. Not so long ago, Teresa May was touting the idea of appointing police "chiefs" from there: Rudy Giuliani was mentioned.
They do say Roy Jenkins got the idea of panda cars from there.
Was in New York back in 1986 and in the city, many of the homeless and down-and-outs were pushing shopping trollies loaded with alu cans and other litter of value. When their trolley was full, they were paid for the contents, and off they went again .................
"Good Law Project had a court hearing last week in connection with our challenge to the award of a lucrative public contract to associates of Michael Gove and Dominic Cummings at Hanbury without competition.
"Documents we can now disclose show that Hanbury, under the instruction of the Cabinet Office, were given taxpayers’ money to conduct ‘political polling’ on key opposition figures, including Keir Starmer and Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan.
"The decision to spend public money polling on opposition politicians left civil servants deeply, and rightly, uncomfortable. One said on email: ‘hanbury measure attitude towards political figures, which they shouldn’t do using government money, but they have been asked to and it’s a battle that i think is hard to fight’."
Mick F wrote: ↑29 Jul 2021, 10:34am
Old info, but valid perhaps?
Was in New York back in 1986 and in the city, many of the homeless and down-and-outs were pushing shopping trollies loaded with alu cans and other litter of value. When their trolley was full, they were paid for the contents, and off they went again .................
I once spent an afternoon with a friend walking the roads of Glencoe collecting deposit bottles. Made a pint of heavy each.
Making the price of cans and bottles include a deposit would do some good.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
thirdcrank wrote: ↑29 Jul 2021, 9:48am
.....
Giving non-custodial sentences greater credibility is rather more demanding. Perhaps the government's motivation might be explored. ....
I appreciate non-custodial sentences and schemes working for the benefit of the community have great merit. My concern with Johnson's approach is that is seems in part designed as a means of humiliating the offender as much as punishment for offence & benefit for the community. Use of terms like "chain-gangs" seems unhelpful.
thirdcrank wrote: ↑29 Jul 2021, 10:10am
Around here, the prominent unpaid work seems to be litter picking on roadside verges - something that would need hi-viz anyway. ....
I have one of those litter picking grab things that I take out on my walks every week of two. Did one a few days ago and collected over 3 stuffed carrier bags of litter from rural lanes (drinks cans, "costa-coffee" mugs/lids/straws, etc.). I don't wear Hi-viz but people do notice and I tend to get a couple of people shouting positive comments "well done ..." appreciating my tidying the community.
But it's frustrating as did a walk collecting litter last week and on one same road last Tues walking I thought I should have brought the litter picker/bags as there was already enough litter to need another tidy!
Going to prison is meant to be the final act of punishment. The sentence to loss of liberty is punishment enough. No further punishment is right and indeed it is illegal, which is not to say it doesn’t happen.
Community sentence should carry no further punishment than the loss of liberty which it entails. Further punishment is entitled wrong. Public humiliation should not be part of our penal system. It does not contribute to that thing which public protection needs and wants: rehabilitation and reducible recidivism.
Do community work by all means, but do it like Timpsons do it: pay them well, give them opportunity for advancement and wear the staff uniform with pride.
Otherwise, as sure as night follows day, too many will reoffend which has helped no one.