Quote:

Rioters were 'unruly mob' claims Theresa MayChildren's Society survey finds majority believe poverty was a cause of riots, countering home secretary's claim that career criminals were responsible Theresa May has dismissed many of the findings of the Guardian/LSE Reading the Riots study – the largest set of interviews with people who took part in England's summer unrest – arguing those involved in the trouble were an "unruly mob" who were "thieving, pure and simple". But a report from charity the Children's Society, which surveyed 13 to 17-year-olds and adults, has found that young people across the UK believe poverty is one of the key reasons behind the August riots. Of those questioned, 66% of adults and 57% of children believed people had rioted "to get goods and possessions they couldn't afford to buy", according to the survey of 1,004 adults and 1,027 children. Writing in the Mail on Sunday, the home secretary said the riots were not about "protest, unemployment or cuts. They weren't about the future, about tomorrow and a person's place in the world. They were about today, about now. They were about instant gratification." Enver Solomon, policy director at the Children's Society, said that a perceived sense of "material deprivation" could not be overlooked as a factor behind the riots. "This research shows that Theresa May is out of step with the majority of children and adults in this country when she says the riots were about instant gratification," he said. "Most people believe that the riots were caused by a whole range of factors – and poverty and material disadvantage are at the heart of it." Analysis of more than 1,000 court records suggests 59% of the England rioters come from the most deprived 20% of areas in the UK. Analysis by the Department for Education and the Ministry of Justice of young riot defendants found 64% came from the poorest fifth of areas and only 3% from the richest fifth. The Guardian/LSE Reading the Riots report – which interviewed 270 people involved in the riots – found that opportunism played a role in the riots when a "suspension of normal rules presented them with an opportunity to acquire goods and luxury items they could not ordinarily afford". But rioters also identified a number of other motivating grievances, "from the increase in tuition fees, to the closure of youth services and the scrapping of the education maintenance allowance", according to the report. Only 7% of adults and 5% of children interviewed in the Children's Society report, Behind the Riots, believed anger at cuts had played a significant part in the riots. But 29% of 17-year-olds cited cuts as a reason behind the unrest, with 67% of those saying more government support was needed following the riots. "The prospects of this age group are pretty bleak," said Solomon. "They felt particularly cuts to public services, they are facing great uncertainty and are particularly effected by high youth unemployment levels." One young person interviewed as part of the report stated: "Young people aren't being prioritised … the government needs to listen." The report found one in five (19%) of children and 23% of adults believed people had taken part "just for fun". Many children and young people felt perception of them had deteriorated since the riots, with 20% feeling they were viewed more negatively. "Our findings show that there is agreement between adults and children that the government should be providing more support to young people," said Solomon. "This sends a clear message to central and local government that the public would like to see more positive activities on offer to children rather than a reduction in out-of-school youth provision. With the considerable challenges now facing children and young people in early adulthood, the case for investing in youth support must be taken seriously." In the comment article, May did not reiterate the initial government line following the unrest that gangs had been at the centre of the riots. Reading the Riots found that the role of gangs had been overstated and gang members that were involved had behaved in an entirely atypical manner for the duration of the riots, temporarily suspending hostilities with postcode rivals. But she emphasised the fact that nearly two-thirds of those brought before the courts were charged with burglary, robbery or theft. "So we know that, actually, they weren't trying to make any political or social statement; they were thieving, pure and simple," she wrote. Reading the Riots found that widespread anger and frustration at people's treatment at the hands of police was significant, with 85% said policing was an "important" or "very important" factor "which was felt to be unfairly targeted and often undertaken in an aggressive and discourteous manner". May said: "On average each rioter charged had committed 11 previous offences. In other words, they were career criminals. Naturally, they don't like the police and I'm glad they feel upset by them. One rioter interviewed by the academics said the police are always 'causing us hell'. In my role as home secretary, I can only say: 'Good.'" May implied the Guardian/LSE report was useful because it was "important as it is to hear [rioters] views – no matter how appalling we may find them", but she stressed that it was "just as important to focus on those who didn't take part", such as victims of the violence. Solomon said: "Yes we must listen to victims, but we must also listen to young people. We can't just dismiss people who don't fit into a government narrative. The government must look at a variety of views and consider a response. The riots were not simply about lawlessness, it was more complex than that."

Rioters were 'unruly mob' claims Theresa May | UK news | The Guardian

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Quote:

But a report from charity the Children's Society, which surveyed 13 to 17-year-olds and adults, has found that young people across the UK believe poverty is one of the key reasons behind the August riots. Of those questioned, 66% of adults and 57% of children believed people had rioted "to get goods and possessions they couldn't afford to buy", according to the survey of 1,004 adults and 1,027 children.

Well yeah. People generally do nick stuff because they can't afford to buy it. That's how the concept works. Doesn't mean that if I go out tomorrow and half-inch a plasma screen telly I should be given tea and sympathy instead of being sent down because I muttered something about generic government cuts at a journalist afterwards. (Equally, doesn't mean I should be given a ridiculously huge sentence because the judge wants to make a political example out of me.)

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Indeed, I don't see how "people had rioted to get goods and possessions they couldn't afford to buy" is substantially different from "they were about instant gratification."

It seems more about tone (Theresa May = lock them up and throw the key away vs. Guardian = poor little deprived people) than about a really different take on what motivated people...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

It's more than tone. One is a social problem, which could in principle be addressed by policy, and the other is a moral problem, which cannot. Condemn a little more, understand a little less, as John Major had it - Tories would rather feel self-righteous than solve problems.

Calling it a moral problem is a caricature of the arguments. Actually a lot of the theorists of the hang-em-and-flog-em movement saw crime in purely economic terms. If you're poor, the risk/reward ratio of crime is more favourable than if you're rich. Their solution was to try to increase the risk.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

What Zichao said. You even have it in movies - In Silver City (Silver City (2004) - IMDb), Chris Cooper plays a George W Bush kinda character and one of his set piece about crime is that you got to stiffen penalties to modify the incentives.

A movie worth seeing, by the way - despite the average IMDB score. I guess Americans still don't like introspection... And 2004 was a bit too early to really piss on GWB...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Zichao

Calling it a moral problem is a caricature of the arguments. Actually a lot of the theorists of the hang-em-and-flog-em movement saw crime in purely economic terms. If you're poor, the risk/reward ratio of crime is more favourable than if you're rich. Their solution was to try to increase the risk.

Except we know that doesn't work - not least becuase if someone spends a long time in te slammer, learning no skills but criminal ones, they have little alternative once released to repeat their crimes. So if it were a PURELY economic analyusis, it makes no sense - but instead it is a punitive and retaliatory analysis. It feels satisfying, but is inefficient.

Except that it actually does work. Locking people up for very long stretches has been acknowledge to work.

Sentence Enhancements Reduce Crime

They call it "incapacitation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incapacitation_(penology).

There are a few factors we know deter/diminish crimes. The first one is the most vague one, the zeitgeist, a 'broken widow theory' but at the level of the social fabric i.e. is it seen as okay/justified to commit crimes? Is the future bright? Or is it a never ending series of crises? The second one is the amount of cops on the street. The more cops the less crime. The third one is the probability of getting caught versus the harshness of the sentence itself. The fourth one is 'incapacitation' - 'players' (repeat offenders unwilling/incapable of integrating society) are being taken out. And I guess the fourth one would be the actual size of the pauper class. It's not easy to demonstrate mathematically due to the first factor (zeitgeist) but I do suspect that the more poor there is, the higher the incentive to commit crimes.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Except we know that doesn't work - not least becuase if someone spends a long time in te slammer, learning no skills but criminal ones, they have little alternative once released to repeat their crimes. So if it were a PURELY economic analyusis, it makes no sense - but instead it is a punitive and retaliatory analysis. It feels satisfying, but is inefficient.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

Except that it actually does work. Locking people up for very long stretches has been acknowledge to work.

Which is irrelevant - that would be true regardless of whether the riots were a sort of "protest" or whether they were due to "instant gratification". So this is not the distinction that May is drawing, and it fails to explain the "short sharp shock" doctrine that the Tory law-n-order wing have long supported. May isn't arguing for long sentences to incapacitate criminals, she's arguing that punitive measures alone are sufficient, and that paying attention to social conditions is misguided.