News1 min ago
He Was A Little Xxxx When He Was Younger And Turned Out To Be Very Dangerous
In adult life.
10 years in a youth offenders institution probably won’t be enough I think.
https:/
But it does make you wonder about human nature and are bad people bad from the start? Obviously we don’t know how the supernanny retraining went long term but did he always have violent tendencies that progressed into sexual violence?
10 years in a youth offenders institution probably won’t be enough I think.
https:/
But it does make you wonder about human nature and are bad people bad from the start? Obviously we don’t know how the supernanny retraining went long term but did he always have violent tendencies that progressed into sexual violence?
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Alas another product of the completely inadequate Youth Justice system in the UK:
//The court heard Young had a previous conviction for threatening a 12-year-old girl with a knife when he was 14.//
For that offence he was almost certainly handed a “referral order”. This means a monthly appointment with a probation officer and a member of the Youth Offending Team. There, over tea and bikkies, they will discuss “how he is getting on” and make sure he has all he wants and needs, It is little wonder that large numbers of young offenders progress to become older offenders.
//whatever makes you think prison / YOI makes people behave better
we know it doesnt
50 % progress to prison and 70% never have jobs
easily room for improvement//
// for the last fifty years recidivism ( return rate to the slammer) has been around 60%//
More confusion between cause and effect.
By the time someone is committed to custody for the first time in the UK they have either committed a single serious offence (one that warrants perhaps two or more years in custody) or a large number of less serious offences. I think the average number of previous convictions for those in the latter group is around fifteen. So, those people have not become recidivists because prison has somehow failed them or turned them into criminals. They were persistent offenders before they went anywhere near a prison, with every other disposal, including help, support and rehabilitation having been tried and failed. Prison does not turn people into persistent offenders. They get that way before they go to prison. They go there because they are criminals, not because they have been there before.
Among the nations in Western Europe, it is far less likely that you will go to prison (for a similar offence) in the UK than just about anywhere else. A minor offence of violence in France or Spain will almost certainly see the offender incarcerated - even if only for a short (sharp) spell. A similar offence against a police officer in those countries will definitely see you sent to prison. In the UK very few people go to prison either for common assault or assaulting a PC. Few are imprisoned for Actual Bodily Harm. It’s only when you get to the serious end of violent crimes (GBH and GBH with intent) that prison becomes more likely.
The UK has a higher proportion of its population in prison because a higher proportion of its population is prone to commit crime. It is not because it sends them to prison. And one of the main reasons for that is explained in my first two paragraphs.
//The court heard Young had a previous conviction for threatening a 12-year-old girl with a knife when he was 14.//
For that offence he was almost certainly handed a “referral order”. This means a monthly appointment with a probation officer and a member of the Youth Offending Team. There, over tea and bikkies, they will discuss “how he is getting on” and make sure he has all he wants and needs, It is little wonder that large numbers of young offenders progress to become older offenders.
//whatever makes you think prison / YOI makes people behave better
we know it doesnt
50 % progress to prison and 70% never have jobs
easily room for improvement//
// for the last fifty years recidivism ( return rate to the slammer) has been around 60%//
More confusion between cause and effect.
By the time someone is committed to custody for the first time in the UK they have either committed a single serious offence (one that warrants perhaps two or more years in custody) or a large number of less serious offences. I think the average number of previous convictions for those in the latter group is around fifteen. So, those people have not become recidivists because prison has somehow failed them or turned them into criminals. They were persistent offenders before they went anywhere near a prison, with every other disposal, including help, support and rehabilitation having been tried and failed. Prison does not turn people into persistent offenders. They get that way before they go to prison. They go there because they are criminals, not because they have been there before.
Among the nations in Western Europe, it is far less likely that you will go to prison (for a similar offence) in the UK than just about anywhere else. A minor offence of violence in France or Spain will almost certainly see the offender incarcerated - even if only for a short (sharp) spell. A similar offence against a police officer in those countries will definitely see you sent to prison. In the UK very few people go to prison either for common assault or assaulting a PC. Few are imprisoned for Actual Bodily Harm. It’s only when you get to the serious end of violent crimes (GBH and GBH with intent) that prison becomes more likely.
The UK has a higher proportion of its population in prison because a higher proportion of its population is prone to commit crime. It is not because it sends them to prison. And one of the main reasons for that is explained in my first two paragraphs.
I tend to think that in needs a really unusual experience to cause a leopard to change it's spots.
As to whether they're bad from the start or it's abominable parenting, the nature versus nurture debate has been going on forever. I suspect a bit of each.
Unfortunate set of genes making it more likely that initial neglected parenting gets one off on the wrong path; after that it's a nightmare to reverse and get back on course. But it's perfectly possible there a range from the cause being mostly nurture to mostly nature.
As to whether they're bad from the start or it's abominable parenting, the nature versus nurture debate has been going on forever. I suspect a bit of each.
Unfortunate set of genes making it more likely that initial neglected parenting gets one off on the wrong path; after that it's a nightmare to reverse and get back on course. But it's perfectly possible there a range from the cause being mostly nurture to mostly nature.
1 to 13 of 13
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.