The SST editorial wants to hang the "hang-em high brigade".
The editor makes a couple of useless points about Dame Sian not having a right to free speech because she is criticised by some for her suggestion of letting people out of prison solely for the reason there is no space.
The editor either stupidly or conveniently confuses the right to free speech as being a right not to be criticised.
In criticising the criticism, they reveal themselves to display the usual combination of intolerance, elitism and arrogance of the left wing intelligensia, such as it is in this country. They think if they make their argument in cool measured tones instead of the impassioned ranting style more characteristic of the right (although communists such as Trotter share this skill) they will come across as sounding far more reasonable. They don't. A bad idea is still a bad idea, no matter how it is packaged.
They re-summarise Dame Sian's proposition with a handy slogan: "the lock-em up approach has reached it's use by date"
Except it hasn't, because the reasons for locking up repeat offenders and violent criminals are nothing to do with the need to provide rehabilitation. Even Dame Sian acknowledges this.
You cannot dispense with justice, and you cannot risk the safety of the community simply because it might be time to re-think our approach to rehab. Indeed, releasing criminals for the reason of saving space will make things worse.
Less prisoners in prisons will come naturally as we fix the root causes - counting less prisoners is not a solution, it's a measuring stick; a barometer. Hiding the numbers is an abrogation of responsibility and shows an inability to face up to the real problem.
The editorial goes on to say that prisons are a monster factory. And yet not one real question on why this might be. Just an assumption that this is another problem that has no solution (other than letting monsters out sooner). How ridiculous. I've already made a couple of points on that issue.
Perhaps the hangers of the hangers high brigade could take a deep breath and stop and listen before criticising, if criticism is supposed to be so offensive?
Related Link: Today's SST Editorial, Print Edition.
The editor makes a couple of useless points about Dame Sian not having a right to free speech because she is criticised by some for her suggestion of letting people out of prison solely for the reason there is no space.
The editor either stupidly or conveniently confuses the right to free speech as being a right not to be criticised.
In criticising the criticism, they reveal themselves to display the usual combination of intolerance, elitism and arrogance of the left wing intelligensia, such as it is in this country. They think if they make their argument in cool measured tones instead of the impassioned ranting style more characteristic of the right (although communists such as Trotter share this skill) they will come across as sounding far more reasonable. They don't. A bad idea is still a bad idea, no matter how it is packaged.
They re-summarise Dame Sian's proposition with a handy slogan: "the lock-em up approach has reached it's use by date"
Except it hasn't, because the reasons for locking up repeat offenders and violent criminals are nothing to do with the need to provide rehabilitation. Even Dame Sian acknowledges this.
You cannot dispense with justice, and you cannot risk the safety of the community simply because it might be time to re-think our approach to rehab. Indeed, releasing criminals for the reason of saving space will make things worse.
Less prisoners in prisons will come naturally as we fix the root causes - counting less prisoners is not a solution, it's a measuring stick; a barometer. Hiding the numbers is an abrogation of responsibility and shows an inability to face up to the real problem.
The editorial goes on to say that prisons are a monster factory. And yet not one real question on why this might be. Just an assumption that this is another problem that has no solution (other than letting monsters out sooner). How ridiculous. I've already made a couple of points on that issue.
Perhaps the hangers of the hangers high brigade could take a deep breath and stop and listen before criticising, if criticism is supposed to be so offensive?
Related Link: Today's SST Editorial, Print Edition.