tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post5028197650374068059..comments2023-10-27T07:50:27.411+01:00Comments on Next Left: New crimes and new causes of crimeTom Hampsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05917325958130851128noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-3916188142174477022009-05-13T15:34:00.000+01:002009-05-13T15:34:00.000+01:00The words on protest policing are a little bit enc...The words on protest policing are a little bit encouraging. One other statement I've seen from someone in the government - a letter from a Home Office minister to the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee - was much less encouraging.Stuart Whitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05090728365798166746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-44867533058946030032009-05-13T11:27:00.000+01:002009-05-13T11:27:00.000+01:00Very interesting blog and response.
Yes, it's eas...Very interesting blog and response.<br /><br />Yes, it's easy to say 'tough on crime' especailly after the Bulgar case (as Zio points out) which so shocked the public. Somehow the other bit of the slogan about the causes has been neglected.<br /><br />In fact, prison is a hugely wasteful revolving door with re-offending rates over 70%. In the current climate of cutting back, surely this should be looked at again and constructive approaches to real rehabiliation be properly considered as Sunder says. At least they've shelved Titan prisons for the time being.<br /><br />In the light of the exspenses row, where MPs are compared to benefit cheats, perhaps MPs might be less punitive for its own sake? <br /><br />However, we shouldn't reform solely for the economic cost - the social cost is what really matters.Calixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05754832236324324540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7985429043801017839.post-48606944866411970132009-05-13T00:37:00.000+01:002009-05-13T00:37:00.000+01:00‘Tough on crime…’ was used first, I think, in ’92,...‘Tough on crime…’ was used first, I think, in ’92, to Conference. (The Bulger murder came after.) Despite its reference to the ‘causes’ of crime, the obvious implication was that punishment would be condign, ie ‘tough’, and that New Labour would no longer be the softies. As a piece of repositioning it imitated (after a little help from Procter & Gamble) Clinton’s ‘New Democrat’ strategy following Republican attacks on Dukakis in ‘88 over the Willie Horton case. <br /><br />And this history is important precisely because it demonstrates, as with the later ‘education, education, education’ nonsense, how New Labour was, right from the very beginning, much more interested in importing salesmanship from abroad than in policy needs at home.Zio Bastonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18066899839752174167noreply@blogger.com