Cutting Welfare for Criminals

chiefohara05

I'm curious as to what peoples feelings would be on the ethics of this.

Basically, every time you commit a serious crime your benefits are cut. Be it child benefit, dole or tax credits.

Not cut to the point that you can't survive, but cut to the point that it would serve as an extra deterrent or as an incentive to straighten your life out.

Im not talking about minor crime such as TV license, tax mess ups, or minor driving offences etc, but crimes ranging in severity like Assault, Breaking and Entering, cruelty to animals, Assault with a weapon etc.

If you are on welfare, you're dole is cut.

If you are working, your Tax credits are cut.

If you have 8 to 9 children and are pocketing a small fortune ever week, then a temporary cut.

You take from the state, the state owes you less entitlements in return.

Victor

Potentially, this just sends some people into full-time criminality.

Jimmy Garlic

Longer prison sentences. No early release. Stricter prisons where a uniform has to be worn and prisoners have to work for their keep. Bare cells and a minimum of entertainment. Turn prison into a deterrent and crime will drop.

Turtwig

Longer sentences won't necessarily reduce crime rate. Crime is a complex beast that is dependent on many sociological factors. Corporal punishments or intense sentencing do not appear to reduce crime rates and that's what the ultimate goal is here. The U.S sends more of its populations to prison than any western nation and yet the results of any benefits on its crime rate aren't measurable. If there is a benefit it's too small to actually be measured!

Prison sentences remove the threat of a particular offending criminal to the ordinary public. With any luck, they'll also rehabilitate this criminal so that when they've served their sentence they'll become a positive functioning part of society. However, in reality rehabilitation is the rarely the goal of prisons operating off a deterrent philosophy. So basically, all this prison serves to do is keep the public safe from one particular criminal for a certain amount of time. It doesn't address the factors that lead to the criminal creations in the first place - and it certainly does nothing to help ensure the criminal won't offend again (other than possibly paralysing or killing them). For many criminals placed behind bars, another citizen is likely to take their place in committing crime in society. For this reason deterrent prisons are primitive and costly. Don't misunderstand me, prisons do serve a useful purpose.

Going back to the OP. If you think of a prisoner as a person with wants and needs. Money is always going to be high up on that list. The difference between the violent criminal and the ordinary citizen is very often how they earn their money. The violent criminal will hesitate a lot less to a kill a person if they're struggling financially. This may seem harsh on the innocent person - the state is effectively paying a criminal so he won't harm others - but for the whole of society it's more cost effective and safer. Prisons are ridiculously expensive.

Why do most people procrastinate? Because they're terrible at realising future consequences of actions. That's ultimately why any deterrent financial or otherwise won't serve to reduce crime rates. Education, improved standard of living and community outreach is the way to go. Reducing the dole on known criminals would likely increase recidivism. As to how much? I don't know.

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

I'm curious as to what peoples feelings would be on the ethics of this.

Basically, every time you commit a serious crime your benefits are cut. Be it child benefit, dole or tax credits.

Not cut to the point that you can't survive, but cut to the point that it would serve as an extra deterrent or as an incentive to straighten your life out.

Im not talking about minor crime such as TV license, tax mess ups, or minor driving offences etc, but crimes ranging in severity like Assault, Breaking and Entering, cruelty to animals, Assault with a weapon etc.

If you are on welfare, you're dole is cut.

If you are working, your Tax credits are cut.

If you have 8 to 9 children and are pocketing a small fortune ever week, then a temporary cut.

You take from the state, the state owes you less entitlements in return.

So children must pay for the crimes of their parents. We already deduct money from people who commit crime it's called fines. The fines act went some way to improving the collection of fines, but much of the Act remains inactive.

I agree with another poster the majority of repeat offenders do not think about the next 10 minutes not to mind weeks into the future. Proper education, catching repeat offenders and their family's early and providing proper intervention. Teaching people that there actions lead to personal issues not just issues for society.

In most measures of crime Ireland is a country of low to medium crime rates.

johnnyskeleton

This would be administratively difficult without any significant cost savings.

There is no clear notification system to social welfare when someone is sent to prison and it is now up to the prison services to inform the welfare:

http://www.thejournal.ie/how-925-prisoners-claimed-social-welfare-despite-being-behind-bars-last-week-477642-Jun2012/

A system that they do have at present is CAB - whenever they can show on the balance of probabilities that someone is earning money from crime and claiming welfare, they can stop the claims and/or re-claim any over payments.

BlatentCheek

Using cuts to welfare payments in addition to prison time for serious crimes like the one listed would probably just increase recidivism as it would make it more difficult for a released prisoner to live a law abiding life.

Using cuts to welfare payments instead of prison time for serious crimes would be inadequate punishment.

Using cuts to welfare payments for persistent low level criminality and anti-social behaviour may work. The type of nuisance crimes that some scrotes do all the time, that destroy the quality of life for other local residents, but are often too minor to attract prosecution or serious punishment. If cuts lasting a few months could be attached to a to a recognisance issued by a district court, in lieu of fining someone who may not pay or giving them a couple of months suspended sentence that may not bother them, they may encourage better behaviour. Considering that ASBOs have by and large not been used since their introduction, this could be a viable alternative.

Manach

From the continental experience, given the shear volumes of money, time and effort that has been pored into trying to redeem criminals which only works in a small number of cases, taking a Posnerian strategam to rational enforce the negative consequences of crime and reduce the strain on the public purse would be welcome.

chiefohara05

ResearchWill wrote: »

So children must pay for the crimes of their parents. We already deduct money from people who commit crime it's called fines. The fines act went some way to improving the collection of fines, but much of the Act remains inactive.

I agree with another poster the majority of repeat offenders do not think about the next 10 minutes not to mind weeks into the future. Proper education, catching repeat offenders and their family's early and providing proper intervention. Teaching people that there actions lead to personal issues not just issues for society.

In most measures of crime Ireland is a country of low to medium crime rates.

Regarding deducting child benefits this was the person who sprang to mind when i wrote it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/derby-house-fire-evil-philpotts

There are generic cases, and there are exceptional cases.

I asked the boards.ie community on the ethics of this because i am still honestly debating it myself.

This is one man who had 118 previous convictions, it was only now until he committed murder that a life sentence is being put to him.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-found-guilty-of-murder-has-118-previous-convictions-588732.html

Had this individual had his dole stripped down to 50% and his quality of life directly affected because of his actions at conviction 20 .... would some sort of message have come across?

chiefohara05

Jernal wrote: »

Longer sentences won't necessarily reduce crime rate. Crime is a complex beast that is dependent on many sociological factors. Corporal punishments or intense sentencing do not appear to reduce crime rates and that's what the ultimate goal is here. The U.S sends more of its populations to prison than any western nation and yet the results of any benefits on its crime rate aren't measurable. If there is a benefit it's too small to actually be measured!

Prison sentences remove the threat of a particular offending criminal to the ordinary public. With any luck, they'll also rehabilitate this criminal so that when they've served their sentence they'll become a positive functioning part of society. However, in reality rehabilitation is the rarely the goal of prisons operating off a deterrent philosophy. So basically, all this prison serves to do is keep the public safe from one particular criminal for a certain amount of time. It doesn't address the factors that lead to the criminal creations in the first place - and it certainly does nothing to help ensure the criminal won't offend again (other than possibly paralysing or killing them). For many criminals placed behind bars, another citizen is likely to take their place in committing crime in society. For this reason deterrent prisons are primitive and costly. Don't misunderstand me, prisons do serve a useful purpose.

Going back to the OP. If you think of a prisoner as a person with wants and needs. Money is always going to be high up on that list. The difference between the violent criminal and the ordinary citizen is very often how they earn their money. The violent criminal will hesitate a lot less to a kill a person if they're struggling financially. This may seem harsh on the innocent person - the state is effectively paying a criminal so he won't harm others - but for the whole of society it's more cost effective and safer. Prisons are ridiculously expensive.

Why do most people procrastinate? Because they're terrible at realising future consequences of actions. That's ultimately why any deterrent financial or otherwise won't serve to reduce crime rates. Education, improved standard of living and community outreach is the way to go. Reducing the dole on known criminals would likely increase recidivism. As to how much? I don't know.

A fair answer, but i guess i am thinking in extremes.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-with-over-eighty-previous-convictions-faces-sentencing-for-death-threats-593933.html

That was the type of criminal i was thinking of when i wrote this post. I can understand how drug addicts, abuse victims, marginalised people can spend their life stuck in criminality, but it seems to me as a layman, its because the consequences of their actions (regardless of its source) don't strike home. Having something like €20 less a week to piss against the wall for the rest of your life because you crippled someone or terrorised an old woman might hammer home a message that prison for some reason doesn't.

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

A fair answer, but i guess i am thinking in extremes.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-with-over-eighty-previous-convictions-faces-sentencing-for-death-threats-593933.html

That was the type of criminal i was thinking of when i wrote this post. I can understand how drug addicts, abuse victims, marginalised people can spend their life stuck in criminality, but it seems to me as a layman, its because the consequences of their actions (regardless of its source) don't strike home. Having something like €20 less a week to piss against the wall for the rest of your life because you crippled someone or terrorised an old woman might hammer home a message that prison for some reason doesn't.

You can not be serious, €20 a week off your dole for "because you crippled someone or terrorised an old woman". Right I'm off.

chiefohara05

ResearchWill wrote: »

You can not be serious, €20 a week off your dole for "because you crippled someone or terrorised an old woman". Right I'm off.

Relax, it was a number i picked out of the air.

If it makes you feel better you can pretend we cut 80% of their dole instead.

chiefohara05

ResearchWill wrote: »

You can not be serious, €20 a week off your dole for "because you crippled someone or terrorised an old woman". Right I'm off.

also you didn't quote the post i replied back to you i noticed.

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

Regarding deducting child benefits this was the person who sprang to mind when i wrote it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/derby-house-fire-evil-philpotts

There are generic cases, and there are exceptional cases.

I asked the boards.ie community on the ethics of this because i am still honestly debating it myself.

This is one man who had 118 previous convictions, it was only now until he committed murder that a life sentence is being put to him.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-found-guilty-of-murder-has-118-previous-convictions-588732.html

Had this individual had his dole stripped down to 50% and his quality of life directly affected because of his actions at conviction 20 .... would some sort of message have come across?

Can't understand how stopping child benefits would have done anything in the first case, as the previous crime was years before the criminal activity.

Really 50% dole would have stopped a murder. In fact murder is a terrible example as very few convicted of murder in Ireland, murder again, in fact I am aware of no example. Murder in Ireland is usually either gang land or committed by friend or family and drink or drugs behind it.

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

also you didn't quote the post i replied back to you i noticed.

Because I'm on a ipad.

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

Relax, it was a number i picked out of the air.

If it makes you feel better you can pretend we cut 80% of their dole instead.

So just so we are clear you are advocating the removal of some or even all of a persons social welfare payments as a punishment for seriously injuring a person, and to be clear that includes their families income.

chiefohara05

ResearchWill wrote: »

Can't understand how stopping child benefits would have done anything in the first case, as the previous crime was years before the criminal activity.

Really 50% dole would have stopped a murder. In fact murder is a terrible example as very few convicted of murder in Ireland, murder again, in fact I am aware of no example. Murder in Ireland is usually either gang land or committed by friend or family and drink or drugs behind it.

two seconds of googling came up with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Murphy_%28criminal%29

chiefohara05

ResearchWill wrote: »

So just so we are clear you are advocating the removal of some or even all of a persons social welfare payments as a punishment for seriously injuring a person, and to be clear that includes their families income.

Im advocating nothing. I stated from the off i wanted to discuss and debate the ethics of it.

Unlike yourself im not on here spoiling for a fight

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

two seconds of googling came up with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Murphy_%28criminal%29

Read what I said again, he has not ever been convicted of murder nor to my knowledge committed a murder since his release.

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

Im advocating nothing. I stated from the off i wanted to discuss and debate the ethics of it.

Unlike yourself im not on here spoiling for a fight

You have put forward an idea, I have said I think that's a silly idea, the only person spoiling for a fight is you. Or am I only allowed post if my post in some way advocates ideas you like. It's called debate, person a puts forward his ideas the other person attacks those ideas.

chiefohara05

ResearchWill wrote: »

You have put forward an idea, I have said I think that's a silly idea, the only person spoiling for a fight is you. Or am I only allowed post if my post in some way advocates ideas you like. It's called debate, person a puts forward his ideas the other person attacks those ideas.

Debate involves discussion. Not accusation or straw arguments. You're being very adversarial and needlessly so.

ResearchWill wrote: »

Read what I said again, or has he has not ever been convicted of murder nor to my knowledge committed a murder since his release.

I've no interested in reading any more of your posts thanks. Please continue to contribute to the thread if you like, just don't expect me to respond to you.

catallus

I may be totally reading you wrong OP, but why concentrate financial punishment on those who have to avail of Social Welfare? Are those who commit the crime but are on a wage or salary to be let off with it? Or should their money be taken away too?

Your idea seems to me to have some merit.

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

Debate involves discussion. Not accusation or straw arguments. You've being very adversarial and needlessly so.



I've no interested in reading any more of your posts thanks. Please continue to contribute to the thread if you like, just don't expect me to respond to you.

Ok I think its a bad idea, I think to punish the family of a criminal for their crimes would be unconstitutional and in breach of their rights under the european convention on human rights. To have a punishment of removing a single persons income to a seriously low level for anything other than a short time in the vast majority of crimes, would be disproportionate to the crime committed. I think any serious crimes of violence or against property should not have a punishment that would be seen by criminals as a soft punishment. I think that a proper fines system (as I said in my first post) together with proper intervention, would be better than either more punishment or prison space. The over worked and underfunded probation service can do little.

But as I also said in my early post Ireland does not have a serious crime level according to any independent source.

Sulla Felix

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Longer prison sentences. No early release. Stricter prisons where a uniform has to be worn and prisoners have to work for their keep. Bare cells and a minimum of entertainment. Turn prison into a deterrent and crime will drop.

Just doesn't work. Rehabilitiation and training does. Give people an alternative for when they're released.

Wilberto

One word: Sterilisation.


But, if "forced" sterilisation is wrong or infringes some human rights issue etc. then all that is necessary is to increase the sentences twofold, with an option for the criminal to drastically reduce it if they agree to be sterilised.

Yes, it means we still have to face the same problem, but at least we would be making the country a better place for future generations.

ResearchWill

catallus wrote: »

I may be totally reading you wrong OP, but why concentrate financial punishment on those who have to avail of Social Welfare? Are those who commit the crime but are on a wage or salary to be let off with it? Or should their money be taken away too?

Your idea seems to me to have some merit.

I would agree with the model of many countries of a "day fine" so the punishment is a multiple of the person daily income. Even though courts should take income into account as fine level are so low for many crimes its not possible.

chiefohara05

catallus wrote: »

I may be totally reading you wrong OP, but why concentrate financial punishment on those who have to avail of Social Welfare? Are those who commit the crime but are on a wage or salary to be let off with it? Or should their money be taken away too?

Your idea seems to me to have some merit.

Well i was thinking primarily of hitting people in their pocket.

For people who are on a wage or salary. people who are high enough earners that cuts on welfare or state pension won't affect them at all, Hit them with Tax Credits, or whatever similar is suitable. If you are continuously convicted of serious white collar crime that robs the state or defrauds ordinary decent people or the taxpayer then you get to pay a higher rate of tax for the rest of your life, the more serious the crime the more significant the rate of tax.

catallus

chiefohara05 wrote: »

Well i was thinking primarily of hitting people in their pocket.

For people who are on a wage or salary. people who are high enough earners that cuts on welfare or state pension won't affect them at all, Hit them with Tax Credits, or whatever similar is suitable. If you are continuously convicted of serious white collar crime that robs the state or defrauds ordinary decent people or the taxpayer then you get to pay a higher rate of tax for the rest of your life, the more serious the crime the more significant the rate of tax.

Sounds fair enough to me. The problem would be the logistics of the thing.

As has been pointed out already on this thread, the system isn't geared towards having different arms (such as the prison service and the SW department) speaking to each other in any meaningful way.

The Judge hands down a fine, it turns into a warrant when it isn't paid, I think that's how it works at the moment. But even while doing their two days inside for what should be seven days the SW aren't even informed about it. You can do anything up to 18 months in prison and have your lump sum waiting for you in your Post-Office account when you come out.

Maybe we should learn to walk before we try running!

Jimmy Garlic

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Just doesn't work. Rehabilitiation and training does. Give people an alternative for when they're released.

Maybe for petty, non-violent criminals but can an a violent sociopath/psychopath be rehabilitated? I really don't think that is possible. They will go through the motions but once they are out they will be up to their old antics again.

Victor

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Maybe for petty, non-violent criminals but can an a violent sociopath/psychopath be rehabilitated? I really don't think that is possible. They will go through the motions but once they are out they will be up to their old antics again.

You can certainly incentive proper behaviour and disincentive improper behaviour - one of the traits is being self-centred after all.

starling

chiefohara05 wrote: »

Regarding deducting child benefits this was the person who sprang to mind when i wrote it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/apr/02/derby-house-fire-evil-philpotts

OP I really don't think there's anything in that particular case that supports your suggestion.

I think another poster has pointed out Philpott wasn't on the dole when he attempted to murder the first girlfriend. He was in the army. Nice assumption though, cause all violent offenders are on some kind of state benefits, right?

Philpott is a violent misogynist who was dedicated to controlling the women in his life. He chose women who had very low self-esteem because they had suffered abuse as children. He set the fire in order to punish a woman who had the sheer effrontery to leave him. None of these things was a result of his employment status. Cutting child welfare would have had only one result: the children being raised by a violent abuser would also starve.

Your line about having "8 or 9 kids and collecting a small fortune in child benefit" suggests a certain lack of real life experience on your part. For one thing it is common for abusive men to impregnate their partners deliberately as children provide another weapon to use against them.

More importantly if you have children it costs a sh1tload of money to keep them fed and clothed. Despite the prejudices you seem to hold, which tend to be fuelled by certain sections of the media and certain politicians, the truth is that having children is not a way to make money.

Just wondering how much experience you have in the area of criminology and/or sociology?

chiefohara05

starling wrote: »

OP I really don't think there's anything in that particular case that supports your suggestion.

I think another poster has pointed out Philpott wasn't on the dole when he attempted to murder the first girlfriend. He was in the army. Nice assumption though, cause all violent offenders are on some kind of state benefits, right?

Thats your assumption not mine.

Read the OP again. Especially the bit about tax credits.

starling wrote: »

Philpott is a violent misogynist who was dedicated to controlling the women in his life. He chose women who had very low self-esteem because they had suffered abuse as children. He set the fire in order to punish a woman who had the sheer effrontery to leave him. None of these things was a result of his employment status. Cutting child welfare would have had only one result: the children being raised by a violent abuser would also starve.

Your line about having "8 or 9 kids and collecting a small fortune in child benefit" suggests a certain lack of real life experience on your part. For one thing it is common for abusive men to impregnate their partners deliberately as children provide another weapon to use against them.

More importantly if you have children it costs a sh1tload of money to keep them fed and clothed. Despite the prejudices you seem to hold, which tend to be fuelled by certain sections of the media and certain politicians, the truth is that having children is not a way to make money.

Mick Phillpot disagrees with you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptx2XzK95dQ

starling wrote: »

Just wondering how much experience you have in the area of criminology and/or sociology?

About as much as you judging from your presumptions.

Read the thread again. You'll find i made no pretence or conclusions at any point.

Then read a few of these articles

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3730335.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/media-blog/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-times-attack-welfare-system

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9969557/Mick-Philpott-a-good-reason-to-cut-benefits.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4875901/Did-benefits-culture-turn-Mick-Philpott-into-a-killer.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303071/Mick-Philpotts-story-shows-pervasiveness-evil-born-welfare-dependency.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/mick-philpott-father-who-helped-kill-six-children-had-stabbed-a-former-girlfriend-29170376.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/philpott-fire-trial-despite-the-boasts-life-behind-closed-doors-was-far-from-great-for-the-popular-local-celebrities-8557293.html

ResearchWill

chiefohara05 wrote: »

Thats your assumption not mine.

Read the OP again. Especially the bit about tax credits.




Mick Phillpot disagrees with you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptx2XzK95dQ



About as much as you judging from your presumptions.

Read the thread again. You'll find i made no pretence or conclusions at any point.

Then read a few of these articles

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/leaders/article3730335.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/media-blog/2013/apr/04/mick-philpott-times-attack-welfare-system

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9969557/Mick-Philpott-a-good-reason-to-cut-benefits.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4875901/Did-benefits-culture-turn-Mick-Philpott-into-a-killer.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2303071/Mick-Philpotts-story-shows-pervasiveness-evil-born-welfare-dependency.html

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/mick-philpott-father-who-helped-kill-six-children-had-stabbed-a-former-girlfriend-29170376.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/philpott-fire-trial-despite-the-boasts-life-behind-closed-doors-was-far-from-great-for-the-popular-local-celebrities-8557293.html

Maybe I'm missing something, but let me recap as I see it, the OP asks the question should income (either earned or SW) be cut to those who offend. The OP asked the ethics of such a move.

The above post from my reading of the links deals with the fact that in the UK large families get large SW payments and housing benefits. They are two very different issues. The OP has linked through out this discussion to unrelated information. None of which from what I can deal with the OP. in fact the links above deal with a person who has been convicted twice once 35 years before for a serious assault on a partner and more recently the killing of his own children. How could the idea if stopping benefit or paying more tax stopped the second crime. If I remember correctly the second crime was motivated by greed and the belief that the family would get a bigger house.

In relation the the Jeremy Kyle clip, if the OP is suggesting that anyone who appears on that show should have SW cut, tax increased or be put in Prision I totally agree they should be severely punished.

Zombrex

chiefohara05 wrote: »

I'm curious as to what peoples feelings would be on the ethics of this.

Basically, every time you commit a serious crime your benefits are cut. Be it child benefit, dole or tax credits.

Not cut to the point that you can't survive, but cut to the point that it would serve as an extra deterrent or as an incentive to straighten your life out.

Im not talking about minor crime such as TV license, tax mess ups, or minor driving offences etc, but crimes ranging in severity like Assault, Breaking and Entering, cruelty to animals, Assault with a weapon etc.

If you are on welfare, you're dole is cut.

If you are working, your Tax credits are cut.

If you have 8 to 9 children and are pocketing a small fortune ever week, then a temporary cut.

You take from the state, the state owes you less entitlements in return.

Child benefit is for the benefit of the child (the hint is in the name). Cutting it will just do nothing that damage the children.

As for the rest it works on the flawed theory that criminals act as they do based on pure rational assessment of need, rather than due to other factors such as violent tendencies, anti-social behaviour, educational learning issues, substance abuse etc.

A far better use of time would be to engage criminals with programs that have been shown to work at reducing crime, rather than deploy Victorian thinking that all you have to do is punish them harshly enough and they will stop being criminals (which has never been shown to work)

starviewadams

Could use the substantial sum of money that it would cost to implement such a silly scheme far better by finance proper criminal rehabilitation and juvenile diversion schemes,as well as giving the probation service some much needed funds.