Although this perspective is endorsed by the media and political actors, mainly during the election seasons, it does not solve the problem. The decision makers need to dwell deeper into other forms to resolve social conflict with the youth.
Share via Email Shamefully, ministers are seriously considering making another ignominious lurch to the right on crime control and welfare reform. They have been debating - even before lawlessness among children was pushed to the top of the political agenda by last week's collapse of the Damilola Taylor trial - whether child benefit should be withdrawn from the parents of children who persistently commit crimes or play truant.
The liberal left will need to move quickly to coordinate their opposition. The Tories signalled yesterday that they are not opposed to the principle behind the plan. Like many moves prompted by gut instinct, the proposal has a superficial populist attraction.
But the gut was not designed to produce thoughtful responses.
ph-vs.com is an online peer-reviewed quarterly journal of scholarship in the humanities, plus poetry, editorials, reviews, visual art and more. Punishment and 'the People': Rescuing Populism from its Critics Hogg, Russell () Punishment and 'the People': Rescuing Populism from its Critics. In Carrington, Kerry, Ball, Matthew, O'Brien, Erin, & Tauri, Juan (Eds.) Crime, Justice and Social Democracy: International Perspectives. Prison policy: NSW leads while Victoria makes mistakes Dealing with the economic and social costs of punitive populism is much harder. If you have inside knowledge of a topic in the news.
What is proposed is unnecessary, unworkable and wrong. It is unnecessary because it ignores powers, which already exist, for courts to impose fines on parents for failing to ensure their children go to school or order them to attend classes to improve their parenting skills.
It is unworkable because there are no simplistic solutions for such complex issues as juvenile crime. According to yesterday's leaks, parents who had made a genuine effort to get their children to school would be excused. But who would make this judgment: Would there be different deductions for truancy compared to law-breaking?
Whitehall must be aghast at the administrative nightmare proposed. It is wrong for a host of other reasons. Some benefits are linked to behaviour. Unemployment, disability and maternity benefits all have conditions applied.
But child benefit from its beginning has always been universal and unconditional. It is not restricted to good children.
It is paid to the parents of all 13 million children in the country. It is there to support parents, not make children behave better. Ministers - and David Willetts, the Tory work and pensions spokesman - fail to understand how fundamental a change they are proposing.
If child benefit can be adjusted to correct persistent truants, there would seem to be no reason why it should not be adjusted for other reasons too. Why not apply deductions to parents whose children are found drunk?
Surely the prime minister has learned by now how difficult it can be for parents to control teenagers. There are further objections. If benefits are to be withdrawn from struggling families, the incentives for children to commit further crimes will be increased by their lack of cash.
Equally important, deducting benefits of tearaway teenagers is far too late to achieve change.
Unruly teenagers are a symptom, not a cause. Unruly behaviour is not something that can be easily switched off.
It requires investment at a much earlier age. Ironically, the government has been investing in just such programmes.
Parenting programmes are beginning to mushroom under three different umbrellas - Sure Start, youth offending teams and Home Office-supported voluntary groups.
About one third of all families with children under five in deprived areas will have a chance of a Sure Start place. There is positive feedback on court-ordered parenting skill courses, with parents not under an order queuing to join in too.
Ministers should hold their nerve:media’s tendency to frame crime episodically as discrete individual actions, as opposed to arising out of wider social processes, may engender individualistic attitudes towards crime control which focus primarily on punitive sanctions against offenders (Iyengar, ).
BOOK III. BEFORE speaking of the different forms of government, let us try to fix the exact sense of the word, which has not yet been very clearly explained.. 1. GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL.
I WARN the reader that this chapter requires careful reading, and that I am unable to make myself clear to those who refuse to be attentive. Every free action is produced by the concurrence of two causes; one.
But Mr Trump’s threats to rip up existing US trade agreements and impose punitive 45 per cent tariffs on goods from China and a similar 35 per cent levy on products imported from Mexico would.
Populism, by contrast, is almost entirely punitive. It seeks to drag down those who have achieved more than they ought to, to get revenge on the successful and to glorify the unsuccessful. The Economist offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science, technology and the connections between them.
Punitive populism refers to the idea that public support for more severe criminal justice policies (most specifically incarceration) has become a primary driver of policy making, as well as of political election cycles, with the result of increasingly harsh punishments regardless of their ability to.