It feels good to be studying again, my brain is clicking back into gear after a summer off, I can feel the cogs grinding and gradually working up to speed.
My first assignment is based around opium and its uses both legal and illegal, and it's a fascinating trip through social history. I now know about the 'Opium Wars' and more recently the 'War on Drugs', both examples of how the actions of people in power have influenced the use (and abuse) of opium and other opioid drugs (eg. morphine, codeine, heroin).
My tutor this year is a woman and so far seems very nice; I get the impression she'll be giving good, constructive feedback which is so important.
So, watch out for Crime and Justice discussions coming up on a blog near you.... that is, here!
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime. Show all posts
Wednesday, 3 October 2012
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Different shoes
Having raided the social science section at the library, I am reading a book called "Dis/connected. Why our kids are turning their backs one everything we thought we knew" by Nick Barham .
The author travels around talking to teens and trying to find out 'what makes them tick', have a look at the reviews in the link above for more description.
One of the things that I noticed reading it was my reaction to some of the activities described in the book, such as groups of 150 souped up cars gathering in a public car park with music blaring, or large groups of teens hanging around with Death message t-shirts on, drinking Vodka RedBulls. He talks about how some city centres have become no-go areas at night, and I'm thinking 'too bloody right, I don't want to be beaten up or vomited on thanks!'.
I realised how ingrained my middle-class-ness is by my automatic response, namely that many of the described situations would make me anxious or disapproving. At some points I felt anger towards the author for generalisations and suggesting that kids behaviour should never be threatening, when clearly sometimes it is. Then again, is that me jumping to my own defense, because does he actually suggest that? The book doesn't suggest everything these kids do is fine, and that we should all accept their behaviours as unproblematic, but it is trying to explain the reasoning behind it and does a good job of that.
Maybe it's not just that some of us have inbuilt prejudices caused by a) our upbringing and b) the media, though this is undoubtedly the case. Maybe some of it is fear of people who enjoy themselves in a different way to us, who get a kick out of doing things that are illegal (or borderline legal), who make people like me seem 'boring'.
Recently I seem to keep reminding myself of that phrase about "walking a mile in another man's* shoes", I guess we should all try to do that when we start judging others on their behaviours or attitudes, it's a good start at least.
*I refuse to change it to "person's" for the sake of political correctness!
The author travels around talking to teens and trying to find out 'what makes them tick', have a look at the reviews in the link above for more description.
One of the things that I noticed reading it was my reaction to some of the activities described in the book, such as groups of 150 souped up cars gathering in a public car park with music blaring, or large groups of teens hanging around with Death message t-shirts on, drinking Vodka RedBulls. He talks about how some city centres have become no-go areas at night, and I'm thinking 'too bloody right, I don't want to be beaten up or vomited on thanks!'.
I realised how ingrained my middle-class-ness is by my automatic response, namely that many of the described situations would make me anxious or disapproving. At some points I felt anger towards the author for generalisations and suggesting that kids behaviour should never be threatening, when clearly sometimes it is. Then again, is that me jumping to my own defense, because does he actually suggest that? The book doesn't suggest everything these kids do is fine, and that we should all accept their behaviours as unproblematic, but it is trying to explain the reasoning behind it and does a good job of that.
Maybe it's not just that some of us have inbuilt prejudices caused by a) our upbringing and b) the media, though this is undoubtedly the case. Maybe some of it is fear of people who enjoy themselves in a different way to us, who get a kick out of doing things that are illegal (or borderline legal), who make people like me seem 'boring'.
Recently I seem to keep reminding myself of that phrase about "walking a mile in another man's* shoes", I guess we should all try to do that when we start judging others on their behaviours or attitudes, it's a good start at least.
*I refuse to change it to "person's" for the sake of political correctness!
Friday, 27 January 2012
Justice, or is it..?
I bought a Telegraph newspaper to read the other day, first time for ages as I normally hear the news on the radio. I don't know whether it's the paper or me that has changed, but I found myself ranting at it over the headlines and the way the stories (are news items 'stories' or 'fact'!?) were written.
One such item was saying that the public (whoever they are) think that offenders who do community service get an easy ride. The paper did at least stop short of adding "....they should lock them up and throw away the key" - I guess that is more The Sun or Daily Mail style.
I personally think that for minor offences, community service is a much better method than imprisonment.
1. the person puts something back into their community which they have damaged in whatever way.
2. they don't get locked up with hardened criminals and come out of prison worse than they went in.
3. it could be the step they need out their previous life, who knows.
4. they pay for the offence in work and the 'shame' of everyone knowing why they are there.
Coincidently, I then went on to read an article for my OU course on Restorative Justice. That is, when instead of going to court, the offender and the victim meet and agree between them (with a facilitator) what steps can be taken to repair the harm or damage the offender has done. In some countries this method is used for crimes up to and including violent / sexual crimes, whilst in others it is limited to minor offences.
Yes I know that exclusion from society is a standard punishment, but with prisons full to bursting and the costs of keeping prisoners spiralling, I cannot see why 'the public' (many of whom are also 'the taxpayer' who pays for the prisons), can't see that in some cases an alternative method might be preferable. Part of the idea of Restorative Justice is the shaming of the person's behaviour, within the community, and this is considered more likely to reduce re-offending than a prison sentence.
Maybe I just don't always think the same was as 'the public'...
One such item was saying that the public (whoever they are) think that offenders who do community service get an easy ride. The paper did at least stop short of adding "....they should lock them up and throw away the key" - I guess that is more The Sun or Daily Mail style.
I personally think that for minor offences, community service is a much better method than imprisonment.
1. the person puts something back into their community which they have damaged in whatever way.
2. they don't get locked up with hardened criminals and come out of prison worse than they went in.
3. it could be the step they need out their previous life, who knows.
4. they pay for the offence in work and the 'shame' of everyone knowing why they are there.
taken from the above linked article
Coincidently, I then went on to read an article for my OU course on Restorative Justice. That is, when instead of going to court, the offender and the victim meet and agree between them (with a facilitator) what steps can be taken to repair the harm or damage the offender has done. In some countries this method is used for crimes up to and including violent / sexual crimes, whilst in others it is limited to minor offences.
Yes I know that exclusion from society is a standard punishment, but with prisons full to bursting and the costs of keeping prisoners spiralling, I cannot see why 'the public' (many of whom are also 'the taxpayer' who pays for the prisons), can't see that in some cases an alternative method might be preferable. Part of the idea of Restorative Justice is the shaming of the person's behaviour, within the community, and this is considered more likely to reduce re-offending than a prison sentence.
Maybe I just don't always think the same was as 'the public'...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)