It’s hard to explain how we might go about establishing facts in order to create a more rational and ‘better’ society. There is room to doubt that even schools and universities have failed us in this respect. These days most of us could home school through the Internet. There is some cracking stuff about in the mire of 99% porn and crap.
Google is now our first route into knowledge – I use duckduckgo too. I refinement on Google is Google Scholar. This puts you into the academic world of books and papers – porn is rare but the 99% crap rule applies. Without organisational/university access you have to pay to read many journals. Paying $20 – 50 a pop for goat-poo doesn’t feel good. Some academics post their work free on their own or university sites.
You can build quite a library through the Internet – but how do you sort the wheat from the chaff? In Cost of Crime (1) I tried to give the reader a glimpse into how hard this can be. Slack use of words by academics reporting a cost of crime project from Cambridge had be thinking each of us in the UK pays 12 quid a year to support just one miserable male criminal prolific offender. Actually, its 12 quid from each of us on average to support all 780 thousand in this category. Pity – as I pointed out – as culling just 4 of them would pay our country’s EU fees if my first reading had been true – whereas the fact is culling all of them would only pay a quarter of this. I think killing people is wrong – but this is incidental to the thought experiment.
One reason I was tempted into false belief on the cost of an individual recidivist scrote is personal impact when they have crossed my path. Our former next-door neighbours were so damaging on our lives that I should have killed them at the start and done the time – I’m a bit ashamed I couldn’t have lived with the guilt. In more recent times, our grandson and many others have been terrorised over two years by a 15 year old piece of vermin. Action and attitudes amongst the relevant authorities has improved, but the ease with which such scrote can ruin victims lives remains as was. How does one cost such stuff as finding a grandchild on suicide sites?
The devastating impact of these shits on people forced to put up with them is so massive I can imagine 4 or 5 of them costing us more than EU membership. The truth is that we are very reluctant to spend the money needed to prevent crime fucking the lives of victims. 12 quid each a year is peanuts, even in dealing with the part of crime committed by the male, high-rate offenders. Yet the peanuts add up to us not having a university of the air – or whatever.
The 15 year old I mention first came to light in our street waddling about in his nappies. A decent neighbour used to take him in. He caused so much trouble at his junior school he was transferred to the one our grandson attended. He needed a firm hand, but I quite liked him at this time. He lasted almost no time at all at secondary school as was sent to one for behaviourally disturbed kids – only to be such a problem there parents started to withdraw their kids – he will be excluded. A six week custodial had no effect and his crimes include burglary and blackmail. The story is long and he has probably done years of damage to other kids. One ‘answer’ could have been to evict the family, but not only would this have punished the rest (decent enough) of the family, they were able to evade this by putting in to buy the house.
Loads is written on all this – https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/208804.pdf – is an American example. My own feelings on discovering my grandson’s terror concerned killing the source of the problem – I’m almost non-violent. When I did warn the scumbag off he caused £500 of damage to our car. I accept that we give up personal retribution, prevention and vendetta for good reasons.. Even Hobbes knew that.
We can ask what it would cost to do the best we can for the 15 year old lout. He could go to a semi-secure boarding school – cost vast. This would, of course, remove the cost burden from our grandson and 50 or so others. A major feature of our CJS is that it defrays costs onto victims. Decisions are made in cash not pain – and in devolved budgets. And we should consider that paying out for facilities to perpetrators feels lousy.
It costs a fortune to sneeze these days. The amount we probably need to spend on the people who commit most of what we consider crime is probably so massive we can’t afford it. Instead we have CJS that tries to keep the lid on and a lottery attitude to being a victim. You’re lucky if you win the money lottery and it’s just tough luck if you ‘win’ the victims’ one.
The financial cost of dealing with problem families is so vast one has to wonder whether giving them the £500K with plane tickets to Bulgaria would be better. Looking ahead of being able to marshal facts, I’d say most already written is likely to be cloud-cuckoo-land posturing. I’m sick and tired of ‘project solutions’ set up with no clue how to put intensive care operations into the financial mainstream. I currently believe we are ignoring paid work as an answer.
We need some imagination – so imagine this. We do some charity stuff to buy some tractors and such (plus the means to fuel and maintain them etc.) and take them to rural India to boost agricultural production. Before getting carried away, you need to think that this excellent idea might end up killing peasant farmers and their families made redundant by the technology. This warning applies well to crime thinking.