Off with their head

[thediceman]

Yeah, I'm sure the granny who got a fine because her 5 year old grand daughter dropped some crisps on the floor has learnt a tremendous lesson and will certainly not commit any further crimes in the future.

Nip it in the bud asap. I'm surprised she wasn't given a custodial sentence for her crime.

[boldie]

Yeah, I'm sure the granny who got a fine because her 5 year old grand daughter dropped some crisps on the floor has learnt a tremendous lesson and will certainly not commit any further crimes in the future.

Nip it in the bud asap. I'm surprised she wasn't given a custodial sentence for her crime.

It's fine that the kid dropped it..it's the granny not picking it up that makes it a mess. New York was a feckin sess pool and Central Park and The subway were un safe..now you can actually walk in Central Park at night and you won't get killed in the subway (well not immediatly) thanks to a zero tolerance approach..I am all for it.

[thediceman]

Yeah evil Granny. I do believe that the child actually dropped the packet and the Granny picked it up and may have not noticed a couple of crisps that had fallen out. Whatever this is naturally a most heinous offense and deserves a £80 on the spot fine. Shame we don't have stocks anymore and then we could preach to the evil Granny the errors of her way.

[boldie]

Yeah evil Granny. I do believe that the child actually dropped the packet and the Granny picked it up and may have not noticed a couple of crisps that had fallen out. Whatever this is naturally a most heinous offense and deserves a £80 on the spot fine. Shame we don't have stocks anymore and then we could preach to the evil Granny the errors of her way.

See, the problem with having a serious discussion about, what could be, a solution to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour is that people always drag up some instance that has nothing to do with the actual discussion but is rather due to an overzealous civil servant or officer of the law. Your example might be laughable but it's not like it's a daily occurence and in general giving people a fine for making a mess of the place is not a bad idea, no?

[thediceman]

Actions require an appropriate response and a blanket zero tolorence policy not only results in such cases which I'm sorry you think is distracting from a serious debate and not relevent but the matter of fact is under a zero tolorence policy the most minor of things get dealt in an OTT way. Why use a sledgehammer to break a nut. As I said in the last paragraph in my first response to you I think pensilaing some people for minor offences is infact damaging to society and ajust alienates people. Also criminalising people for minor offenses has other impacts such as insurance cost and job opportunities.

The whole New York model is somewhat different and quite laughable when put forward as a solution to UK problems. Didn't some police chief up north Ian Halliwell (sp??) introduce zero tolorence. I don't many quoting this as a success but prefer to use another countries case which had totally different factors as the solution.

[thediceman]

See, the problem with having a serious discussion about, what could be, a solution to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour is that people always drag up some instance that has nothing to do with the actual discussion

See the problem is people often quote more serious crimes as a reason to get tough on minor crimes. Bin to full / fly tipping. Flashing breasts at CCTV / drunken disorderly behaviour in the streets.

[pokerram]

my mate had is car stolen which was crashed into someones property. insurance company paid out straight away. police did him for driving without due care and attention. solicitor said plead quilty so it dont go to crown court. 450 pound fine

[kinboshi]

See, the problem with having a serious discussion about, what could be, a solution to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour is that people always drag up some instance that has nothing to do with the actual discussion

See the problem is people often quote more serious crimes as a reason to get tough on minor crimes. Bin to full / fly tipping. Flashing breasts at CCTV / drunken disorderly behaviour in the streets.

There are two things here.  The punishments for the 'crimes' you mentioned are of course ludicrous (no matter what Blondie said).  They shouldn't however, be used to show how a 'zero tolerance' approach is flawed.

A 'zero tolerance' to crime still needs a logical set of rules/guidelines, and flashing your breasts at a CCTV camera isn't really what it's about.  Unless we want to live in a police state.

[Jon MW]

(a) He may have called it zero tolerance - but it wasn't what was used in New York (it couldn't be, because they just aren't funded well enough).

Using elements of the system doesn't work, trying a cheap version of the system doesn't work, only a co ordinated approach by the police and the judicial system works.

(b) you don't have to be OTT to have zero tolerance, zero tolerance to litter dropping doesn't mean you make criminals out of all the litterers - it might mean they all get at least a warning, it might mean some (or even a lot)  get fined - but mainly it means that it isn't just ignored. Something gets done.

[boldie]

(a) He may have called it zero tolerance - but it wasn't what was used in New York (it couldn't be, because they just aren't funded well enough).

Using elements of the system doesn't work, trying a cheap version of the system doesn't work, only a co ordinated approach by the police and the judicial system works.

(b) you don't have to be OTT to have zero tolerance, zero tolerance to litter dropping doesn't mean you make criminals out of all the litterers - it might mean they all get at least a warning, it might mean some (or even a lot)  get fined - but mainly it means that it isn't just ignored. Something gets done.

Thank you.

[kinboshi]

No, thank you... Blondie.

[boldie]

See, the problem with having a serious discussion about, what could be, a solution to a lot of crime and anti-social behaviour is that people always drag up some instance that has nothing to do with the actual discussion

See the problem is people often quote more serious crimes as a reason to get tough on minor crimes. Bin to full / fly tipping. Flashing breasts at CCTV / drunken disorderly behaviour in the streets.

so flashing breasts is not disorderly behaviour but perfectly acceptable? (you might be all for it as a guy but that doesn't mean it's acceptable). You can't tolerate it ..it's the sort of behaviour that makes some people reluctant to go out into city centers at night.

Again, the bin too full guy did nothing when he recieved his fine and that's why he is now in the news..not because people thought the law was ridiculous when introduced. (A bin lid that is open can lead to vermin coming in and stench coming out and amazingly that IS something people complain about when it happens.

However like Kin said..you can not use examples that show how extreme something sometimes gets dealt with and say "See, it doesn't work!"

[boldie]

No, thank you... Blondie.

sigh..that's gonna stick a while, isn't it?

[kinboshi]

No, thank you... Blondie.

sigh..that's gonna stick a while, isn't it?

It's bloody genius.

[AndrewT]

People who commit low-level crime are far far more likely to commit serious crime than the general population. Sometimes here the police will set up roadblocks and stop every car and check for tax/MOT/insurance. Drivers found without these get checked out properly and the police find a large number of outstanding fines/arrest warrants/more serious naughtiness.

Also, not getting punished for low-level stuff when young helps instill a sense of 'I'll never get caught' in the minds of the anti-social, which helps move them onto more serious stuff.

We need an army of Judge Dredds wandering about executing people for stuff and that. Once the bodies start piling up we might start seeing fewer crisp packets blowing about.