Jail size reduction due to high building costs.

Interesting point on the baby bonus – has anyone ever refused it?
One thing about the Welfare point.
A good friend of mine had a kid at 18 and then got a job in the public service earning about 45K an year, she has since left that job and began studying (she is actually financially better off being on Welfare with the child care and housing rebate than she was working as a single mum), however, while the welfare fact is what helped her decide to return to study, she is now almost finished her degree and will be better able to contribute to the ecomony as being a skilled worker.
If it wasn’t for her being able to go on welfare -yeah, she would still be working, but in an unskilled job without any real chance of furthering her career and contributing to society in a meaningful way.

I didn’t hand my baby bonus back – I used it towards buying another investment property.

Gas chambers.

I hate the won’ts with a passion….. no matter what you do for them… they won’t help themselves.. I have seen it so many times. It’s bullshit that they bring the system down.

Just on another little attack… I wonder how many of those who complain about welfare.. recieved their little baby bonus and how many handed it back because they were so adamantly against welfare.

Snahon – good point. It’s the “won’ts” that need to be targetted here.

For a modest fee of about $250k per year I will sit on a big throne and decide the value of the persons placed before me…

Singapore is a good example of rehabilitation – the prisons and punishments are enough to seriously deter people from doing naughty things, and there are campaigns to help both the prisoner and society reaquainted when released. Last time I was there a couple of years ago there was a big campaign about reaccepting people into society who had done their time. The idea was that they had been adequately punished, and had learnt their lesson, and now it was time to cut them a break and accept them. Hey, I liked the idea.

On a slightly different line of thought, perhaps if the public thought criminals were adequately punished they would be more willing to accept them?

Every society contains the haves and have nots, the can and can’t, do’s and dont’s and finally the will’s and wont’s. I draw the line at the wont’s.

While it’s been fun watching people play out their vengeance fantasies in public, a certain amount of willingness to let people re-enter society (and to allow them to be productive members of the society) needs to be considered in a well organised prison system.

We don’t have to look overseas for examples of this. The birth of our own country is littered with examples of people who were brought over here as punishment – and who then went on to become active, interested members of an emerging nation, and whose decendents have built a society which, despite bitching, has proved to be pretty damn good.

In some ways, you almost need two prison systems. One for those who have sinned, and who stand a reasonable chance of being rehabilitated, and another for the sociopaths who are simply beyond help. Of course, this requires being willing to decide which is which. But since riotact is full of people who are absolutely, positively sure of who’s worthwhile and who’s not, that should be easy…

Apply the european tasmanian aborigines program and save some of those nuts the squirrels like to hold onto.

I think that is a great idea.
A camp where behavioral therapy etc is taught and you are forced to deal with situations and feelings in a controlled environment – forcing people to deal with things that they have previously not and/or used drugs and other means to cope with.
Education is the key -that sounds cliche’ but if ppl don’t know any better, how can we really expect them to do better.
Once the “graduate” this program they (in theory) should have learnt the skills they need to function in society.
If they then go on to make the choice that it is easier to do a,b or c instead – then they can’t claim circumstances, drugs or whatever as an excuse because they have fully been given the chance to change and therefore their concequences should be more severe after it is shown that they Consciously made the decision to commit crime.no excuses at that stage.

Would it be possible to take greater control of the lives of those who demonstrate (time after time) that they genuinely can’t participate in society?

Re-education camps anyone?

At some point we are going to have to accept that no matter what solution/system/scheme is developed to deal with things there is ALWAYS gonna be people who slip throught the cracks, people who will rip the system off and peopl who will take advantage of it.

It is true that we need to stop the cycle – but there is also a point beyond which people can’t really be helped (can’t/won’t help themselves), but cutting off their $350 a fortnight doll money is still only going to make situations worse for both them and the community through their subsequent actions as a response to having their income taken away.

Yep VY and we also need to stop so many squirrels from being selfish whinging idiots.

The Stolen Grasshopper Generation perhaps?

A nice story, but it suffers from the same shortcomings as the first fable – we assume that all players are master of their own destiny. Once again, grasshoppers won’t know any better when they see their parents (and grandparents, etc) doing the same thing.

What’s needed is to come up with a way to break the cycle and have the ‘nuts’ to grab the young grasshoppers and show them how the world really works.

well I will be damned. someone actually saying something with intelligence (other than yours truly of course). Good story shab.

Yep – getting those single mums off welfare has been great. Off welfare and into McJobs where they can’t take care of their kids; and kids that might otherwise stand a chance end up even more fucked than their mums.

Is the mum a victim? Maybe. How’d she get pregnant? What’s her background?

Is the kid a victim? Well, by denying that kid any parents at all (rather than just the one it could have had) you’re turning it into one.

You can’t turn everyone into a productive member of society; but you might be able to turn around a few who could go either way.

Okey doke. If we’re exposing our literary talents (or lack thereof…) here goes.

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. The squirrel moralised to the grasshopper, warning him of the winter to come and calling him a “Lazy, good-for-nothing bum”.

Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving.

The social worker is dismissed as a hippy, and the grasshopper, like so many of his ilk was allowed to starve.

Of course, there were still grasshoppers around the following summer, playing and frolicking while the squirrel toiled away. “The bastards just keep coming back”, said the squirrel, socking away another acorn. He wasn’t too concerned though. His tree was well stocked with nuts.

Shortly thereafter, a number of beavers came from a nearby stream and knocked down a few trees. “Don’t worry”, said the beavers, “Our removal of acorn-bearing oaks has been judged as sustainable”. Anyone who asked questions was dismissed as a hippy.

A few weeks later, a rampant strain of Dutch Oak disease took out a few more.

Suddenly there were a lot of squirrels without trees or nuts. The prudent squirrel, for all his hard work found himself having to eat the acorns he had stored, because there just didn’t seem to be as many to go around any more.

When asked why no-one seemed to have many nuts any more, the wise old owl said “It’s a structural/fiscal readjustment. Don’t worry – the market will provide.” Anyone who disagreed was dismissed as a hippy.

Winter came, and squirrels froze and starved in their droves. Squirrels had to go hang out with the grasshoppers in the shelter (surviving on the odd nut chucked their way by wealthy squirrels). The grasshoppers turned some squirrels on to smack as a way to deal with the fact there they were cold and starving, and how to break into another squirrel’s tree to take their nuts or just beat the snot out of them and take their nuts.

The prudent squirrel pointed out that maybe they wouldn’t have so many nuts stolen if there weren’t so many starving smack-head squirrels running around. He said “Maybe if we just gave them a few nuts so they didn’t starve and put them in a temporary tree so they don’t freeze and work out a way to get them off the smack it might be better for everyone”.

The prudent squirrel was initially dismissed as a hippy, and told that it would just encourage grasshopperiness. A few squirrels put this idea into practice, and started giving nuts to the shelter. Problem was that there just weren’t enough charitable squirrels to help out the starving ones.

Eventually, the charitable squirrels worked out that the only way this was going to work was if everyone’s stock of nuts got garnished – so they lobbied the government to put it into action.

There was a lot of grumbling about not having as many nuts, and “lazy good-for-nothings getting fat on my hard work”, but come next summer, a few of the squirrels were able to move out of temporary accommodation and into a permanent tree. They were also able to start socking away acorns for the next winter.

The problem took years to go away, but eventually, the squirrels that didn’t starve or freeze to death managed to get back on top of things. The ones that survived remembered how unpleasant living in the shelter was, and didn’t grumble when the officer from the Squirrel Tax Office came to collect some of their nuts (well, not much, anyway).

The problem of the grasshoppers was still there, though. The bastards just wouldn’t go away. However, the fact that they weren’t all dying in winter meant that some of them got it together enough to learn from the squirrels and prepare for the bad times.

Of course, not all of them did, and they still did smack, broke into trees and beat up squirrels…but somehow there just didn’t seem to be as many of them any more.

Here we go, it was only a matter of time before someone started screeching about the Nordic and Scandinavian ‘welfare utopias’.

Yep, generous amounts of welfare, but a highly skilled workforce means that people don’t stay on welfare for long – so it’s not really required and isn’t very expensive for the taxpayer.

You’re also comparing apples and oranges, Norway is an extremely wealthy country because of North Sea oil.

Sweden is cracking down on its welfare, mainly due to large numbers of unskilled migrants sitting around and not getting off it.

The best policy the United States has implemented in recent years is a 5 year sunset of welfare payments. Funnily enough the birthrate among teenage girls has been falling, and workforce participation of existing single mothers has been rising.

what about the guy who gets sacked from the job he has been doing loyally for 20 years. can’t do up a resume, suffers depression because his loyalty has been crushed.

Or the kid that makes some stupid decisions when they are young.. but wants dig themselves out of the hole..

you don’t think these people should get welfare to give them a hand.

Norway has the best welfare system in the world, it really looks after the downtrodden. They pay the highest taxes, but are amongst the highest paid skilled workers, have amongst the lowest crime rates, don’t pay for education and can retire on up to 75% of the wage at time of retirement. There standard of living is generally considered very high. Perhaps this is what should be aiming for as opposed to an american style system.. where the average standard of living is not really considered that high. But it seems like australia has a high percentage of morons these days.. so it would not suprise me at all if we go that very foolish path.

Read it as you wish Mr_Shab but VY already pointed out the bleeding obvious. The grasshopper doesn’t improve itself to become more self sufficient and society prefers to label it a victim instead of a lazy shit.

Ah. My bad.

didn’t you know that if you harbour humanatarian beliefs you are a hippie?

Dunno how preferring that people can eat rather than starve is hippie; but there you go.

“Author, author!”

much applause

and stop being so hippie shabby

Okay – Ralph takes a pretty good swipe at the “Left”, and commits the usual logical fallacy of the “Right” by giving simple and jingoistic answers to complex problems. Often involving the old chestnut of the prudent squirrel and that nasty drug addled grasshopper. Find another allegory.

I could go on for many more paragraphs rebutting the crap that was spouted in Ralph’s narrow-minded, cliche-riddled, straight-from-the-mouth-of-Alan-Jones-in-one-of-his-more-smug-moments rant; but I have to fundamentally agree with him on one very important point – we’re way off topic.

victims. are you serious. try taking responsibility for your own actions. Stop blaming welfare cheats for the amount of taxes you pay 😛

The story captures many of the players very well. The problem is that if no-one has ever kicked the grasshopper’s ass into gear, he won’t know any better. However, the squirrels and dogs ane several other players are still the victims here, but get passed off as the bad guys because they worked hard in the first place.

Ralph, I found that really offensive – Cats and Grasshoppers have rights too, you know! 😉

great back of the serial pack logic there. I amazed how well that story covers every user of welfare. just nails it.

I loved it and yet am disturbed at the same time…

It was emailed to me, but the original author (I don’t know who that is) deserves much praise.

I’m not discussing anymore as we are already way OT.

Shit! Nice story – Did you just write that now or was that something you developed earlier????

Welfare is a product of the 60s and 70s supposed ‘cultural revolution’. Not the great depression. It’s amazing how people will innovate when faced with starvation and no government support. Gee China, Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, Singapore are all doing really really well – no welfare states there.

The Welfare Fable

REST OF THE WORLD VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The Grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the Summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. His relatives learn from the experience and keep working hard.

THE END

THE AUSTRALIAN VERSION:

The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the
grasshopper, are cold and starving.

The ABC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food.

The Australian press informs people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty.

The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of Australia demonstrate in front of the squirrel’s house. The ABC, interrupting a cultural festival special from St Kilda with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing “We Shall Overcome”.

Bill Shorten rants in an interview with Laurie Oakes that the squirrel has gotten rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his “fair share” and increases the charge for squirrels to enter Melbourne city centre.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive
to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel’s taxes are reassessed. He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as
builders, for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.

The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrel’s food is seized and re distributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper.

Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home. The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Australia as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Australians apparent love of dogs.

The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody. Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from peoples credit cards.

A 60 Minutes special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel’s food, though Spring is still months away, while the
council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn’t bothered to maintain the house. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshopper’s drug “Illness”.

The cats seek recompense in the Australian courts for their treatment since arrival in Australia.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him.

Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery.

A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost $10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up. Additional money is put into funding a
drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased. The asylum seeking cats are
praised by the government for enriching Australia’s multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to
befriend the cats.

The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the
root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for the resignation of a minister.

The cats are paid a million dollars each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in Australia.

The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional
percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will
have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

THE END

VY – I do believe that sucessive governments have tried to “tune” the system; but any system as blunt as welfare isn’t perfect and never will be. Undeserving people will get money and deserving people will miss out – but it’s better than the alternative.

And Ralph – I’d say common sense and market economics are often mutually exclusive terms.

Maybe you’d do better to turn your anger towards where the majority of welfare money and tax breaks are going – that being people with jobs who don’t need it – as baby bonuses, child care payments, FBT and so on.

I’d hardly call it talking “common sense”

Or possibly that philanthropy never boomed in the first place? The spirit of philanthropy was never much cop, just a way for wealthy people to assuage their guilt.

A welfare state freed us from people begging for food, starving in the street and dying from hypothermia in cold weather.

In today’s society, relying on philanthropy would be an unmitigated disaster. If you suddenly had all this money from your tax cuts, would you be doling any of it out in philanthropic gestures? Fuck no, you’d buy a bigger house/car/plasma TV. Hell, why not two – you earned it.

At least in the early 20th century people had a sense of community and a respect for the greater good over rugged individualism. That led them to make an, at most, token philanthropic gesture. Not enough to allow people any more than an existence just above starvation, of course – that would just encourage laziness.

Then the Depression came along and people realised that sometimes, no matter what a good hard-working type you are, you’ll lose your job and won’t be able to feed your family. Thus, we have welfare.

Try your system on for size and we won’t be able to build enough gaols for the amount of crime and horror that will result. Engage your brain before your mouth, Ralph.

It’s not that we shouldn’t have any welfare, it’s more about ‘tuning’ the current system to support those who need it, encourage education and development and slap those who deliberately rort the system. I think a bit more tuning is probably required.

Gee, a bloke talks common sense and market economics – and the lefties arc up and start hurling personal insults. Nice one.

no progressive means that we continue to advance ourselves and look to improve things. The system you put forward would send us back to the dark ages. If you believe anything else you are a complete fucking idiot.

Also this concept of church based welfare opens the way for kiddy fiddler city. I am assuming given your intellect that is what you want?

Yes, and I’d rather than money be slashed to the bare minimum and redistributed back to us as tax cuts.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason why philanthropy isn’t booming is because we have a welfare state? People don’t donate much because they are already doing so through their taxes.

I’ll take ‘less progressive’ as meaning ‘left wing’.

Convert or starve – that’s fucking brilliant!

Just a quick point on the welfare issue – did we all know that about a third of the TOTAL TAX TAKE goes to welfare. That’s a big number, people!

Yes Ralph, cause people are such charitable types these days. Philanthropy is booming.

What utter tosh.

Besides, in giving churches the power to dictate the terms of welfare, aren’t you giving them the ability to say “Convert or starve”.

The market doesn’t have all the answers any more than regulating the crap out of the market has all the answers.

I know links aren’t the way to go here but this caught my eye the other day, and says what I think many of us are trying to say. Change their local media for the Canberra Times and their references to judges to our learned judiciary and it’s spot on

http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0728/9591734.300k.asx

Sorry, I was looking for RiotAct. I seem to have stumbled upon Today Tonight’s web forum.

Whatever the size, it gives the residents of Jerrabomberra with their telescopes on the balconies, something to look at.

That is seriously the most stupid idea of all time. I can honestly not think of anything dumber and less progressive.

Where are the churches going to get the money?

People would donate as they see fit, and the churches and other charities would have to compete against each other for funds. The market would soon sort out that scarce resources would flow to where they are most needed. Beautiful.

capital punishment is a weird one. I beleieve that some people definately deserve it. But there is always that element of doubt, it doesn’t really set a good example for society and is perhaps too humane in that it lets some of these people off easily.

A giant working electric chair would be a great start. I’m sure any one of the local Canberra artists would be willing to build it for a small fee.

Another glib idea, Ralph.

Nowithstanding the other immense practical problems with your idea…Where are the churches going to get the money? Unless we all start giving a tithe of our income to the church again (calling it a tax would make it bad and governmenty, wouldn’t it) the money is going to have to come from the government.

Kinda like…um…welfare?

The number of actual “Dole Bludgers” is grossly overstated by Today Tonight and people that think that taxes are a gross impost on personal freedoms, rather than the price we pay to live in a civilised society (if I may paraphrase Jefferson).

VG – to clarify, my views on sentencing are probably not as far from yours as you might think. Crims (especially violent ones) get off too lightly in the ACT. But that’s another debate.

Oh that’s essential to the ‘quality’ of the ‘rehabilitation institution’.

Sorry to drag this kicking and screaming back on point, but now that the size of the gaol has been reduced to get it within budget, I wonder if this means that the public artwork that was commissioned for the gaol (there was a tender in the press some months ago) has also been canned. Or was that a “non-negotiable”?

Yup thats gonna work!! Worked so well in the dark ages.

Actually worked quite well before governments stepped in. Think about it. A handout from a faceless bureaucracy, or from a local church community to whom you have to face everyday and expects you to improve your lot in return for their help.

Thanks VY –
As with most crims, these ones aren’t too bright and the police are regular visiters at their house.

Perhaps VG could follow this one up if you sent him some discreet details.

Thanks snahon –
I was thinking that too – but now I’m of the mind that they can go F*$CK themselves.
Kinda along the lines of the “Fear means the terrorists have won” saying – Without being recklessly stupid, I am not going to let these dero’s intimidate me. They are no hopers and I believe in Karma 🙂

Feel sorry for you FC.. You can’t report them because I am sure they eventually sus it out and being neighbours, payback would not be pleasant…

Sorry guys -venting a bit there 🙂

Nice idea Nik.
It would also stop the dero junkies getting the doll while making Shitloads from dealing.
My next door neighbours are on the doll, they’re paying approximatly $80 per fortnight rent to housing -From my ammature calculations they’d be pulling in AT LEAST $2000 pew week tax free just from the amount of drugs they sell (they are not very discreet). It really makes be wonder if my $3000 per month mortgage is worth it when they get to both
a) live in a similar style house (although there’s is all dero’d up with the unregistered cars etc
B) they are paying about 20x less than me for it
C) they don’t have to go to work each day

sorry I misread… it won’t make them sterile… ignore my second paragraph.

I agree with that solution 100% Nik. Works on a civil liberties level, makes people resposible for their actions and controls birth rate.

Perhaps you could have the option of up to the age of say 20 of having non-sterilising drugs.. that way it gives people an opportunity to change there ways or suffer the consequences. The problem with this though opens the non-sterilising drugs up to a black market.

Nik_the_Pig for PM!

protect the people who do the right thing ? sheez we can’t have some level of common sense in the judiciary system can we ?

hmmm wonder how quick the crime rate would go down if we implemented a system of 3 strikes and your dead – literally ? no doubt extreme but I’m sure there would be an extreme drop in crime.

The problem with the whole punishment fit the crime mentality is that (in the eyes of the crim’s) the risk vs reward is obviously justifable. If you scaled the punishment to what could be view as excessive and enforced it, I wonder what impact that would have – since the risks become alot higher vs the reward.

Cut the welfare, toughen up the penalties and let the churches sort the people into the poor and non-deserving poor.

Yup thats gonna work!! Worked so well in the dark ages.

I completely agree that welfare couldn’t be something that people just rely on instead of getting off their asses and getting a job.And don’t get me started on Housing -but my point was more that to abolish it completly would be ridulous and detrimental to the economy, probably causing more crime also.

I have a simple plan. Legalize all drugs. Everything – Heroin, Ice, whatever. Make it govt regulated at a reasonably cheap price or let the market dictate, whatever works, as long as it results in those who wish to partake not having to do 20 burgs a week to support their habit.

Now here is the kicker – add a contraceptive to all drugs, there is a male contraceptive now so make it dual sex and put it in all drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, cannabis, the lot. That way people can make a choice, the a family or drugs not both. Most people these days who are serious about trying to have kids give up the grog (well most of the women I know did, their hubbies haven’t been as disciplined) and ciggies. This way it reduces the chance of accidental pregnancies and of birth defects/ being born with addictions/ dysfunctional/ incapable parents.

Harsh? maybe. Foolproof? no. but I’m certain it would make a positive difference. A violation of an individuals right to live as they wish? Who give a dam. No rights without responsibility I say.

It’ll never happen mind you – it would decrease the birth rate and therefore depress the economy too much.

FC – this raises the question of ‘what is welfare’? I never got Austudy because I had 2 part time jobs while working at uni (although I was living at home). I have no objections to helping people get ahead, as long as the welfare isn’t doing all the work.

make that ‘…protecting those people who do the right thing…’

Completly cutting the welfare – What a F*&#cken stupid idea.
I was on Welfare (Austudy) in college and wouldn’t have been able to survive without it.
Am now earning $70K+. Would have any job if I hadn’t been able to finish school.
It is hardly welfare and light prison sentences that is causing a culture of drugs and criminality.

What’s really needed here is a multi-faceted approach. The points made about identifying and helping people before they commit real crimes are well made. That said, if people are given the opportunity to do the right thing and choose not to, there needs to be some sort of negative consequences. Unfortunately it seems that having tougher penalties may not reduce crime – does this mean that lighter penalities will? I doubt it. My personal view is that the justice system should be about protected those people who the right thing from those who do the wrong thing, and the needs of those who live their lives in a productive and law abiding manner should come first.

Mr Shab, I suggest you read Losing Ground by Charles Murray, and The Tragedy of American Compassion by Marvin Olasky (adviser to George Dubbya).

Great books on how the welfare state has created a ‘poisonous culture of drugs and criminality’, and has locked now three generations into poverty and welfare dependence.

Cut the welfare, toughen up the penalties and let the churches sort the people into the poor and non-deserving poor.

I doubt that it has done “zip” to reduce crime.
Maybe if these ppl where taught better skills as children they may have been more able to be rehabilitated.
If they have been criminals for the last 20yrs of their lives then that’s all they know.
Not a good enough excuse to get away with shit – but putting money into services and being proactive instead of reactive would be more help.
People in gaol don’t Necessarily become someones “bitch”, but they do get the chance to make more criminal contacts, discuss various new criminal ideas, and get more and more pissed off at society. Sticking someone in a gaol cell and treating them like shit, expecting them to become “rehabilitated” is similar to giving a 2 yr old a novel and then being disappointed when they can’t read it.
This live is usually all they ever know so unless some resources are put into trying to help rehabilitate them we can’t really excpect to see any changes in them.

On the other hand you could always be from the side of the fence that believes that no-one is responsible for anything and you can always blame mum/dad/society/poverty/ethnicity/itchy bum/boredom for any type of social indiscretion committed.

People who commit crime will get ‘messages’ when they’re locked up for committing their crimes. If they enjoy having a new boyfriend named Bubba then the ‘message’ might be a positive one, but it is quite obvious that lesser penalties (or poorer applications of the one’s already provided) and a focus on rehabilitating the poor sods has done absolutely zip to reduce crime, in fact it’s increased it

Wind up the penalties all you like, Ralph. You won’t stop people committing crime. People who commit crime won’t get any “messages” you send them with tougher sentences.

And yeah – ditching welfare would be a great way to reduce crime. People with no means of getting a legitimate income and no employable skills won’t turn to crime in order to eat. No sir-ee.

As for the comment about blacks and hispanics in the US being welfare dependant…why are they welfare dependant? Is it, perchance, that they come from a background of disadvantage (a cute, PC word for grinding poverty, poor education and a poisonous culture of drugs and criminality)?

Do you honestly think that locking up 1 in 25 of them( yep – that’s how many black adult males are in prison right now) will fix that? Or are you not interested in fixing the problem at all? Is it just easier to make a ham-fisted attempt to sweep it under the carpet by locking a generation of people away.

On the test for whether they can have kids or not one question should be “What types of food would equal a healthy brekkie for a child”
And any of them that say “maccas” should be automatically banned from having kids for life!

I think the best approach is to just take the suggestion above and apply it to all ages: if you can’t afford kids you don’t get to have them. When you can demonstrate that you can afford them, you will get issued with a license.

Man I love this freedom thing!

Just witnessed guy outside my work who would have benefited society if his mamma had been forced to abort!
F*cken degernate! Don’t they realise that it is just not acceptable to be swearing and spitting in public – Oh, that’s right – it was normal for his mamma and her b/f’s to shoot shit up their arms so I guess spitting is relatively harmless as far as he is concerned.

FC – that is the other half of my plan… to have kids under the age of 25 you must pass certain criteria.. including being in a financial position to raise kids. This would also mean that the bullshit $3000 baby bonus could be cut.. and perhaps that money could be used to help subsidise child care or go back into education, somewhere where it actually belongs.

This I can assure will reduce crime and reduce the amount of unbalanced (but not criminal) children. And could also provide more foetus’ for stem cell research. Further down the track more people would want to have children because the standard of living is higher, because there are less people dependant on welfare.

Forgive me for wanting to make the streets safer, and for wanting to send send a genuine signal to parasites that if they commit crimes they will do time.

Mind you the welfare state is to blame for most of the crime problems in western countries. Those 2 million in US prisons, most of them are blacks and hispanics – heavily dependent on welfare.

And more serious concequence for child neglet etc.
Not just having your kids removed.
Maybe then people would think twice before they do drugs around their kids, or whatever.

Mandatory abortion for under 25s – No. Way to broad. plenty of people under 25s are still capable of having kids and raising them.
Maybe there should be some type of dero test.
Or, sterlyisation for dero junkies or whatever to stop them having kids all the time when they can’t look after –
I have it! a test like you get for you licence, you have to answer some questions about kids etc and if you fail, stiff shit, no kids for you.
I on

more funding for prevention in the first place would stop it. Mandatory abortion for under 25’s anyone?

Seriously though governments do not want to stop crime… because they probably could… taking away crime takes a big chunk out of our economic loop thing (excuse my economic ignorance)… kind of the same as if bill gates made an infalable OS.. it would fuck world economy.

doesn’t it cost something like $50 000 + to have prisoners in lock up??

And BTW – it’s a lot cheaper having someone on welfare than having them in gaol.

Yeah Ralph, cause the “lock ’em up and throw away the key” approach has always worked so well in the past.

I mean, slapping people in irons and transporting them to the colonies just eliminated crime in Britain. 1800’s London was just a utopia. I mean, we’ve both done the history.

They’ve locked up 2 Million people in the US, and things are just peachy over there. No crime. Everyone feels safe in their homes and people walk the streets at night unmolested.

Your glib statements show your apalling ignorance like a 2 million watt neon sign.

Well when most of them come out they end being a burden on welfare – and reoffending. So best to keep them locked away.

Reoffenders should be given a dose of hot lead, thereby freeing up more room for the virgin offenders.

the prob with that ralph is that if you can’t cycle them in and out it becomes a burden on tax payers… even if they only get the bare minimums.

What happened to contracts with fixed prices and deliverables ?

I’m beginning to get the feeling that that doesn’t apply to our local government.

Well if I were running the show they’d be going in there and not coming out – for a long time.

And what’s this crap about corbell saying they don’t want to compromise the ‘quality’ of the prison? WTF is that about? Who says the need heating and views of the Brindabella’s. All they should be looking forward to is a concrete slab for a bed, hard labour and views of walls and bars.

i think jail has to find the perfect balance of punishment and rehab. Too much rehab.. and society starts whinging that they are getting more than everybody else… too much punishment and the crims come out worse.

Perhaps teaching them to build and to work with other people wouldn’t be such a bad idea?

I confess I lost track of all the figures long ago but what were the projected savings from not having to pay NSW to look after the ACT scumbags in NSW prisons?

Yep – so they can come out completely un-rehabilitated and maladjusted and reoffend immediately. The role of justice is not just to punish, but also to educate.

Besides, jail is not a warm and fuzzy place Ralph, no matter how many counsellors you stick in there.

Ideally we would get the prisoners to build the prison, but the unions won’t like that so that not a goer.

Who says prisons are a place of ‘rehabilitation’? This is a place of punishment and reflection, not hugs and soothing chats with 40 something female counsellors.

you really wanna whip people don’t VY 🙂

I’ll stand there and whip their weary frames to keep up the work…

“Neat-o. And we can have a mean life expectancy of 22………..”

If the life expectancy of 22 can be applied to criminals, then bring it on! 🙂

“It’s to be hoped they build it within budget”

What happened to contracts with fixed prices and deliverables ?

Much easier to relocate some of those disused houseboats on some of our former rivers and lakes to Lake Burley and use as 21st century prison hulks.

Neat-o. And we can have a mean life expectancy of 22 and only allow land owners to vote.

They could save money by building the perimeter fence, and then make the prisoners break rocks all day to build the buildings – just like they used to do in 1788.