An Answer to Anti Social behaviour
Discussion
While I'm formulating my political plans for the future, how about this as a (serious) cost effective measure to curb anti social behaviour. I propose ' The TV control order'
If you are convicted of low level harassment, criminal damage or some other repeat nuisance offence like shoplifting, the court ( society) doesn't want to impose custodial sentences except as a last resort, primarily due to cost. Hence the burgeoning number of people with multiple convictions yet they never see the inside of a cell. Fines don't work either because, as is well documented, if you are already receiving benefits it is really difficult (apparently) for the court to deduct still more money from you. I'm not saying I agree with it, that's how it is though- hence fines of a few hundred pounds being paid off at £5 per week for years.
My idea is a TV control order available as a sentencing option to the courts. The idea is that when convicted the court impose the order on the offender and, crucially on his address. It means quite simply that you aren't allowed to have a tv in your address for the duration of the order. Of course this may impact on your family, they then can't watch a tv either. As Oso would say, it's all part of the plan. What a massive inconvenience for you as mum/dad/sister/brother. Maybe that might mean 'the family' would exert pressure on you to behave? I can see a lot of people being deeply cheesed off if they were deprived of the X factor on a regular basis.
It's surely nobody's human right to watch tv. This would be cheap as well. Cheaper than tagging for example. You would also give Police the power to enter the convicted persons address at any time, without notice to check if a tv was present. If it was, borrowed, brought to the address by someone else, whatever, then it gets seized. No excuses. I can't see people liking the fact the Police could bowl into their address at any time unannounced ( for the duration of the order) either. Who knows what else they may find whilst checking for a tv.
Politicians, feel free to nab this idea. I have many more. They are all gold!
Anyway, would it work?
If you are convicted of low level harassment, criminal damage or some other repeat nuisance offence like shoplifting, the court ( society) doesn't want to impose custodial sentences except as a last resort, primarily due to cost. Hence the burgeoning number of people with multiple convictions yet they never see the inside of a cell. Fines don't work either because, as is well documented, if you are already receiving benefits it is really difficult (apparently) for the court to deduct still more money from you. I'm not saying I agree with it, that's how it is though- hence fines of a few hundred pounds being paid off at £5 per week for years.
My idea is a TV control order available as a sentencing option to the courts. The idea is that when convicted the court impose the order on the offender and, crucially on his address. It means quite simply that you aren't allowed to have a tv in your address for the duration of the order. Of course this may impact on your family, they then can't watch a tv either. As Oso would say, it's all part of the plan. What a massive inconvenience for you as mum/dad/sister/brother. Maybe that might mean 'the family' would exert pressure on you to behave? I can see a lot of people being deeply cheesed off if they were deprived of the X factor on a regular basis.
It's surely nobody's human right to watch tv. This would be cheap as well. Cheaper than tagging for example. You would also give Police the power to enter the convicted persons address at any time, without notice to check if a tv was present. If it was, borrowed, brought to the address by someone else, whatever, then it gets seized. No excuses. I can't see people liking the fact the Police could bowl into their address at any time unannounced ( for the duration of the order) either. Who knows what else they may find whilst checking for a tv.
Politicians, feel free to nab this idea. I have many more. They are all gold!
Anyway, would it work?
monkey gland said:
No, because the government have no way to centrally turn off the TV signal for ne'er-do-wells.
If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
Don't fight the future!If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
monkey gland said:
No, because the government have no way to centrally turn off the TV signal for ne'er-do-wells.
If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
Don't fight the future!If they teamed up with Virgin and Sky then it could be done, especially since I imagine almost every person being done for antisocial behaviour has either sky or virgin. Clearly this is the very last thing those companies would want to do however.
In short, you're quite insane.
Negative Creep said:
I though the punishment was supposed to be against the offender, not their family?
Then the family encourage the offender to toe the line lest they are all inconvenienced.I maintain it's potemtially a cheap to implement deterrent. Joking aside the stocks or public flogging aren't likely to make a comeback soon.
You Can argue thay it's punishing a family for potentially the actions of one person but I like that. Besides a family are also punished if one member is imprisoned, just in a different way
My idea is in response to the current judicial system.
Flogging, jailing or banishing people are
Not options. The goverment wont spend the money on jailing low level offenders. The options at present are fines and community punishments.
As I explained the fines are a nonsense as they can be paid off at a nominal amount per week. They have no deterrent value.
Community punishments cost to implement and monitor. Add to this the people paid to 'supervise' these schemes want an easy life.
Offender is supposed to report at 10am but turns up at 1130. The person supervising doesn't want a confrontation or additional paperwork.
The offenders really get an easy ride
with these schemes.
Tv control is an inconvenience that's cheap to administer and has real deterrent value. Sure you can go watch tv at your mates or even on your
Phone. But knowing police can
Come calling on you and spin your drum at any time is going to be a major hassle, one you may be keen to avoid. Simples no?
Flogging, jailing or banishing people are
Not options. The goverment wont spend the money on jailing low level offenders. The options at present are fines and community punishments.
As I explained the fines are a nonsense as they can be paid off at a nominal amount per week. They have no deterrent value.
Community punishments cost to implement and monitor. Add to this the people paid to 'supervise' these schemes want an easy life.
Offender is supposed to report at 10am but turns up at 1130. The person supervising doesn't want a confrontation or additional paperwork.
The offenders really get an easy ride
with these schemes.
Tv control is an inconvenience that's cheap to administer and has real deterrent value. Sure you can go watch tv at your mates or even on your
Phone. But knowing police can
Come calling on you and spin your drum at any time is going to be a major hassle, one you may be keen to avoid. Simples no?
Haters be missing the point...are you hard of thinking?
How do you censure people who are convicted of low level offences?
We don't send many people to prison. Prison is expensive. Instead courts hand out bind overs, nominal financial penalties ( which can't be paid by those on benefits and aren't given to juveniles) or community punishments. These don't work so well either and are expensive.
I take the point that at present we don't punish a family for the behaviour of one of its members. Well, we don't unless you consider that some families lose their home/tenancy when convicted of repeat offences. In those instances it's not always the entire family who are anti social yet they all lose their home.
Clearly no appetite for it on the Pistonheads forum. Fair enough. But I think there should be more ways for the courts to take action with regards to low level crime. If you are living in a nice gaff, in a nice area it's easy to take 'pity' on the people who clog up magistrates courts up and down the land. Easy if you don't have to interact with them.
I say again if you know you won't go to prison, can't pay a fine and know a community punishment is a joke what have you to fear from the criminal justice system? You may laugh...ha indeed you have, but I reckon having your plasma swifted by the old bill and knowing they could bowl through your door at any time in future ( as with a warrant currently) to 'check' you haven't got another one ( and maybe to curb some of your other activities) would be a real deterrent. It would cost pennies as well.
Bring the criticism but remember, the oxygen thieves do like their telly!
How do you censure people who are convicted of low level offences?
We don't send many people to prison. Prison is expensive. Instead courts hand out bind overs, nominal financial penalties ( which can't be paid by those on benefits and aren't given to juveniles) or community punishments. These don't work so well either and are expensive.
I take the point that at present we don't punish a family for the behaviour of one of its members. Well, we don't unless you consider that some families lose their home/tenancy when convicted of repeat offences. In those instances it's not always the entire family who are anti social yet they all lose their home.
Clearly no appetite for it on the Pistonheads forum. Fair enough. But I think there should be more ways for the courts to take action with regards to low level crime. If you are living in a nice gaff, in a nice area it's easy to take 'pity' on the people who clog up magistrates courts up and down the land. Easy if you don't have to interact with them.
I say again if you know you won't go to prison, can't pay a fine and know a community punishment is a joke what have you to fear from the criminal justice system? You may laugh...ha indeed you have, but I reckon having your plasma swifted by the old bill and knowing they could bowl through your door at any time in future ( as with a warrant currently) to 'check' you haven't got another one ( and maybe to curb some of your other activities) would be a real deterrent. It would cost pennies as well.
Bring the criticism but remember, the oxygen thieves do like their telly!
AJS- said:
What's simple about it? You really think that people who get into a drunken rage and go around terrorising their town are going to sit on the couch, curtains drawn and volume down worried that their enjoyment of the Jeremy Kyle show is about to be interrupted by the police?
And do you think the police are going to bother to go knocking on doors ensuring that these people are not watching TV?
As for being based on our current legal system - any precedent for banning someone from a legal activity in their own home, or any logic to it as a response for committing an illegal activity outside your home? Or indeed for punishing everyone at the same address as the offender?
People who as you say are violent and go around, as you say, terrorising their town may not be suitable to be dealt with how I'm suggesting.And do you think the police are going to bother to go knocking on doors ensuring that these people are not watching TV?
As for being based on our current legal system - any precedent for banning someone from a legal activity in their own home, or any logic to it as a response for committing an illegal activity outside your home? Or indeed for punishing everyone at the same address as the offender?
As for banning a currently legal activity in someone's home, yep, that's right. That's what I'm suggesting. We currently tag people and force them to observe curfews. That would be far less tolerable ( I would imagine) if you couldnt watch films or play video games on your 42" bad boy all day. At the very least, it would be an inconvenience. Arguably much more of one than a fine you pay off at £5 per week.
Incidentally, Police all ready go around knocking on doors to check people are observing curfews and bail conditions.
AJS- said:
What's simple about it? You really think that people who get into a drunken rage and go around terrorising their town are going to sit on the couch, curtains drawn and volume down worried that their enjoyment of the Jeremy Kyle show is about to be interrupted by the police?
And do you think the police are going to bother to go knocking on doors ensuring that these people are not watching TV?
As for being based on our current legal system - any precedent for banning someone from a legal activity in their own home, or any logic to it as a response for committing an illegal activity outside your home? Or indeed for punishing everyone at the same address as the offender?
People who as you say are violent and go around, as you say, terrorising their town may not be suitable to be dealt with how I'm suggesting.And do you think the police are going to bother to go knocking on doors ensuring that these people are not watching TV?
As for being based on our current legal system - any precedent for banning someone from a legal activity in their own home, or any logic to it as a response for committing an illegal activity outside your home? Or indeed for punishing everyone at the same address as the offender?
As for banning a currently legal activity in someone's home, yep, that's right. That's what I'm suggesting. We currently tag people and force them to observe curfews. That would be far less tolerable ( I would imagine) if you couldnt watch films or play video games on your 42" bad boy all day. At the very least, it would be an inconvenience. Arguably much more of one than a fine you pay off at £5 per week.
Incidentally, Police all ready go around knocking on doors to check people are observing curfews and bail conditions.
El Guapo said:
I've got a better idea.
- Build 50 prisons up and down the land, each with 4000 cramped, uncomfortable cells.
- Employ 200-odd powefully-built and slightly sadistic people to staff each of them.
- Get the magistrates and judges to do their jobs properly.
- Good behaviour gets you no more than 20% off sentence.
- Once these prisons reach 90% occupancy, build more.
But politicians of all parties have no appetite for this. I agree with a mass prison building system though, arguably better for the public than a high speed rail system. But it's not going to happen.- Build 50 prisons up and down the land, each with 4000 cramped, uncomfortable cells.
- Employ 200-odd powefully-built and slightly sadistic people to staff each of them.
- Get the magistrates and judges to do their jobs properly.
- Good behaviour gets you no more than 20% off sentence.
- Once these prisons reach 90% occupancy, build more.
Again, how do you inconvenience/deter habitual retail shoplifters?
Society doesn't want them imprisoned. They can't pay a fine. They don't fear a community punishment. For possible answer see OP
toxicated said:
I quite like the idea and do understand the point about peer pressure 
My main concern is that if they wanted to watch TV they'd break into my house, drink my beer and s
t on the carpet.
Nah, theres a big gap between proper burglars and those who casually steal, damage and make a regular nuisance of themselves.My main concern is that if they wanted to watch TV they'd break into my house, drink my beer and s
t on the carpet.Britain still trends to jail domestic burglars
I appreciate taking away someone's Ooman right to watch tv in their massif seems a bit....odd. But if you consider the context in which I'm suggesting it I maintain it could be a cheap deterrent to petty crime.
oldcynic said:
And what about those families who are desperately trying to get a grip on the wayward son or daughter? Who have discovered that government chant of "every child matters" translates into "every budget matters"? Do you add to their woes? Do you blame them for the actions of an independent being over whom they have no control?
Personally I'd have no problem with loss of television, but I'm not convinced of the arguments for punishing the family to get at the offender. My experience tells me the the offender won't give a flying fk, whilst the rest of the family will be one step closer to breaking point.
You are basing your example on a scenario where there is a decent family, with one rogue member. Maybe a tv control order wouldn't be suitable. That would be for the court to assess. Not difficult to check the offending history of every member of a household.Personally I'd have no problem with loss of television, but I'm not convinced of the arguments for punishing the family to get at the offender. My experience tells me the the offender won't give a flying f
k, whilst the rest of the family will be one step closer to breaking point.I'll give you a scenario. Two people living in council sponsored accommodation, out nicking packets of razor blades from supermarkets on a daily basis. As you may ( or may not know) boxes of razor blades are targets for thieves as they are easy to sell on. If they are caught the police can, for a first offence, deal with it at the scene with a ticket ( which won't be paid if they are on benefits) otherwise they get nicked. Maybe cautioned or charged. But what about the tenth offence? Or the 20th?
at least when you take their tv they are inconvenienced and it wold be a real pain for some, which is the point.
How do you censure this sort of behaviour!?
As I said earlier, this applies to entire families in many cases. If the behaviour of these type of people doesn't touch your life it's easy to be glib. I'm sure some numb nut will be along to post in a minute - " move to a better area then" but not everyone has that option.
In any event no area in Britain is intrinsically 'bad' none of our major towns, or the small ones come to that, are built over ancient Indian burial grounds, toxic wasteland or are plagued with poisonous snakes or killer bears. Everywhere has running water, gas and electricity. What people mean is that some areas have more ' unpleasant' people than others. The areas with less 'unpleasant' people become viewed as 'good' and people stop caring why.
I'm not suggesting taking someone's tv is an alternative to prison, just another option as the current system of fines and bind overs doesn't work.
jonno990 said:
Three strikes = mandatory five year sentence, option to the offender though of one year doing charity work in the third world.(big) Maybe they would see their lives differently on return? I like the idea, but British politicians won't. Would cost too much as well.
How would it be paid for? Foreign aid budget.
No appetite for doing away with this in government.
I also think that community service should be picking up litter in their hometown wearing a tutu.
great idea, I'd have convicted young ( under 30 ) offenders picking up litter outside pubs and nightclubs whilst tethered at the ankle in groups of six, in town centres on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights in hi vis clothing as an example and visible deterrent to other youngsters. This may also rob crime of the 'glamour' image it enjoys currently among some young people. I can't see many girls thinking a bloke picking up litter with his mates looks 'dangerous or cool'.How would it be paid for? Foreign aid budget.
No appetite for doing away with this in government.
I also think that community service should be picking up litter in their hometown wearing a tutu.
Alas there's no appetite for that either. It would cost loads of money to supervise as well and the liberals would go into melt down.
oldcynic said:
he trouble is - how do you differentiate between the family with the wayward child and the completely fked family? And even if you get the right answer in the end - through however many hours / days of court hearings - how do you repair the financial and employability damage created in the process? Add in a few fabricated allegations from the wayward member (because they're already in a legal process and it seems like attention-grabbing fun) and you have a recipe for destruction.
On the whole I agree with you, however life experience tells me it's not always so easy to establish an accurate prejudice. And you're probably right that removing TV would cause about as much trauma as going to prison. My 4YO daughter was asking about things they didn't have in the olden days this evening - television was in that list. She then asked "so what did they watch?"
You differentiate by doing what probation do already. Check the PNC records of all members of a family. Easy. I have experience of neighbour disputes in the past. It's easy to forget that one scumbag family can really destroy the lives of a road full of other families. I stress I'm not suggesting that my proposed tv control order is the magic bullet for dealing with the sort of problems I've described. But it could have an immediate impact that the person/ family concerned would notice every day. ked family? And even if you get the right answer in the end - through however many hours / days of court hearings - how do you repair the financial and employability damage created in the process? Add in a few fabricated allegations from the wayward member (because they're already in a legal process and it seems like attention-grabbing fun) and you have a recipe for destruction.On the whole I agree with you, however life experience tells me it's not always so easy to establish an accurate prejudice. And you're probably right that removing TV would cause about as much trauma as going to prison. My 4YO daughter was asking about things they didn't have in the olden days this evening - television was in that list. She then asked "so what did they watch?"
Teenage son won't turn his music down. At all. Stands in his garden with his mates swearing, shouting. You knock the door and ask, politely if he could tone down the music and the language. Dad tells you to 'bucking do one' you call police. They attend and speak with dad. Next day your car has been keyed while it's on your drive. Mum from next door smiles at you and says-your car looks nice, laughs and walks in. Music goes on real loud. Call police. No witnesses, nothing we can do. Constant sounds of swearing, arguing and fighting next door. Call police. Call council. Drip drip. There's nothing anyone can do.
Easy to be dismissive if it's not you it affects. Not suggesting tv control is the ultimate sanction, but it's more than ther is at present, it's cheap, workable and would deter.
D
New POD said:
Anyone found guilty would have the "TV" sentence. Where a team of crack TV marksmen would be able to breakdown the door of thier house any time of the day or night, and smash the telly, st on the sofa, and piss in the kettle.
There would be no warning, just a vague "expect a visit in the next 3 years"
As far as people to DO this job, I believe that firemen could be retrained, and could fit this in between putting out fires and saving cats.
Funnyt on the sofa, and piss in the kettle. There would be no warning, just a vague "expect a visit in the next 3 years"
As far as people to DO this job, I believe that firemen could be retrained, and could fit this in between putting out fires and saving cats.
oldcynic said:
If I knew an effective answer then I wouldn't still be scratching a living as an IT bod. You would however be on to something if house arrest was part of the package.
Too expensive to,Police. Knowing the old bill can pop into your gaff would be unpleasant and crucially, cost the taxpayer very little. Who knows what other activity these visits may curtail as well?Very much like the sentencing lottery idea...can't see our centre left chums in government having that either.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff