No welfare for criminals

SLUSK

I have a suggestion that I think is good. People who commit crimes like theft, fraud, assault and so on should not be allowed to receive any welfare benefits paid for by the taxpayers. Why should people be able to commit assault, theft and robbery and still be able to receive welfare checks and council housing?

If committing these acts meant you would lose all your rights to welfare would provide people with good incentives not to commit crimes. I think this is common sense, alot of boardisies would probably think this is right wing nuttery :mad:

danman

While I totally understand where your coming from with this, I can't see it as being an option.

It would also disincentivise crims from going "straight".
They would be cast into a spiral.

But I do agree with the sentiment.

SLUSK

danman wrote: »

While I totally understand where your coming from with this, I can't see it as being an option.

It would also disincentivise crims from going "straight".
They would be cast into a spiral.

But I do agree with the sentiment.

I think it is wrong to subsidize a lifestyle based on theft and thuggery. Maybe that's just me.

super_furry

Right, so you leave convicted criminals - people who have already shown that they're willing to break the law - with no money for food, clothing or other basic essentials.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that they'll break the law again in order to get what they need. Can't imagine a convicted shoplifter going straight after they come out of jail, can't get a job because of their conviction and then being left with no money for food because they've no welfare.

Really, I don't think I could come up with an idea that's more likely to cause crime.

bladespin

SLUSK wrote: »

I think it is wrong to subsidize a lifestyle based on theft and thuggery. Maybe that's just me.

Forcing someone who's made a mistake into a life of crime is wrong too IMO.

Red_Marauder

Picture it: Gieves is a seasoned criminal, a shoplifter, burgler and thug, who has at some point decided that crime if profitable and he is going to pursue this as a supplement to his income.

Someone takes away Gieves dole, rent allowance, and children's allowance (lets ignore that legal quagmire for now) and he comes out of jail with a criminal record and no income.

No address, no dole, nor rent money - How does he go about funding himself?

SLUSK

super_furry wrote: »

Right, so you leave convicted criminals - people who have already shown that they're willing to break the law - with no money for food, clothing or other basic essentials.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that they'll break the law again in order to get what they need. Can't imagine a convicted shoplifter going straight after they come out of jail, can't get a job because of their conviction and then being left with no money for food because they've no welfare.

Really, I don't think I could come up with an idea that's more likely to cause crime.

It would discourage would be criminals at least.

SLUSK

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Picture it: Gieves is a seasoned criminal, a shoplifter, burgler and thug, who has at some point decided that crime if profitable and he is going to pursue this as a supplement to his income.

Someone takes away Gieves dole, rent allowance, and children's allowance (lets ignore that legal quagmire for now) and he comes out of jail with a criminal record and no income.

No address, no dole, nor rent money - How does he go about funding himself?

Hopefully he will commit suicide.

super_furry

Of course it wouldn't. Fine's don't discourage criminals, prison doesn't discourage them and this wouldn't discourage them.

super_furry

SLUSK wrote: »

Hopefully he will commit suicide.

And I'm done here.

LeBash

What will these people do without welfare?

If someone is willing to steal while on welfare, I assume they will cover the 200 + a week by stealing more.

bugler

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No address, no dole, nor rent money - How does he go about funding himself?

Presumably the OP thinks he'll just disappear. Or maybe lie down and die.

Unfortunately, like most hard-ass reactions to crime it would be extremely counter-productive, and would lead to increased crime and violence which presumably the approach is meant to punish. It is a poor policy that encourages that which it claims to remedy. But hey, who cares as long as it seems harsh on crime?

EDIT: I see the OP is now openly trolling. I am also done.

SLUSK

bugler wrote: »

Presumably the OP thinks he'll just disappear. Or maybe lie down and die.

Unfortunately, like most hard-ass reactions to crime it would be extremely counter-productive, and would lead to increased crime and violence which presumably the approach is meant to punish. It is a poor policy that encourages that which it claims to remedy. But hey, who cares as long as it seems harsh on crime?

If these actions don't work it is because they are not harsh enough.

tricky D

SLUSK wrote: »

Hopefully he will commit suicide.

Might as well cut to the chase and execute them all:rolleyes:

SLUSK

tricky D wrote: »

Might as well cut to the chase and execute them all:rolleyes:

Execution might be to harsh for robbery, but public whipping should be ok.

bored and fussy

i agree with you something can and should be done about this but instead of cutting them off their welfare altogether (they have to eat) they should have to pay a small amount for their freelegal aid a small amount should be taken from their payments towards fines etc i think this would concentrate their minds somewhat

33% God

bored and fussy wrote: »

i agree with you something can and should be done about this but instead of cutting them off their welfare altogether (they have to eat) they should have to pay a small amount for their freelegal aid a small amount should be taken from their payments towards fines etc i think this would concentrate their minds somewhat

Or make them bitter and in need and therefore more likely to re-offend.

Given that we have so much evidence of the huge link between relative poverty and crime it would be complete fingers-in-ears lunacy to ignore all of that evidence and enact a policy that would increase relative poverty among offenders and almost ensure that would re-offend.

A measure such as this wouldn't even save taxpayer money, the costs of the inevitable increase in crime as a result of it would be enough to offset any savings, even before you factor in the costs of investigating the crimes, putting these people through the courts, and then into prison again.

What would save money however would be making sure that offenders have some kind of way out of criminality after leaving prison; attempting to give people a path out of a life of crime would reduce re-offence and the costs associated with it, and who knows, they might even become taxpayers and start contributing to the exchequer :eek:.
Not only would such an approach be more useful, it also has the advantage of not being morally reprehensible like this guy:

SLUSK wrote:

Hopefully he will commit suicide.

nesf

SLUSK quit trolling.