The Gray Monk: Young offenders might suffer the consequences of their own violence?

February 19, 2006

Young offenders might suffer the consequences of their own violence?

The news earlier this week that Lord Carlisle had published a report for the Howard League covering the deaths of young offender’s and attacking the guards at the Young Offender’s Institutions for using “pain” and “force” to control them aroused my interest, and then my anger. It is obvious that the authors of this latest piece of stupidity have never had to deal with violent and disturbed youngsters. Equally obviously, they have lost sight of the fact that they are in these institutions because they have committed, not one, but usually a string of offences, many of them involving the use of violence against a victim.

As is usual with anything published by a certain group of “child welfare” lobbyists, they have lost sight of the fact that these are youths who are, for the most part, a menace to the societies they come from. Instead they are portrayed as “victims” of a brutalising regime and a society that doesn’t care. Society does care, it cares a great deal as to whether or not we can walk down our streets without being attacked by a group of “Happy Slappers” or whether our children can go safely to the town centre without having their money, jewellery and mobile phones stolen. We are concerned too about the level of violence many of these so-called “children” deploy at the slightest provocation. These young people won’t learn that “violence begets violence” in the institutions – they already know that and are more than happy to initiate it.

Naturally nobody wants to see these young people further brutalised, but you do have to ask the question; how do we expect the guards to deal with a violent and abusive teenager, often bigger and stronger than the guards? Very often pain is the result of particularly violent struggling to avoid the consequences flowing from an attack on a guard or a refusal to “lay off” another inmate, but it is a consequence of action, not a deliberate intent.

It often seems to me, that the promoters of the concept of “don’t discipline your child, persuade and reward” miss the central point here. A child does not necessarily have the necessary language skills or the understanding - certainly in the early years of grow – to understand a reasoned argument, so occasionally, a sharp reminder is required. They also seem to completely deny the existence of some predispositions which arise when our genes incline us to certain behaviours, such as violent temper, lack of appreciation of consequences and quite possibly and tendency to simply be a person who cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. To admit that some of us may have such a genetic defect, is almost to admit that some people may not be “responsible” for their actions, and we don’t like that thought either! After all, we like to think that we are all able to control our own actions and our destiny, that it is a straight forward choice between “right” and “wrong”. Perhaps it is, once we have figured out what our “default” settings are – and then we have to learn to modify them, to behave within the accepted norms of society, or accept the consequences.

Personally, I hope that Mr Blair and his cronies place this report where it belongs, in the round filing cabinet to be found next to any desk.

Posted by The Gray Monk at February 19, 2006 05:04 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://mt3.mu.nu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3969