ASBOs (1 Viewer)

[Buzzo]

Ahem

The discrimination is insidious. The court system is a zzzzzzzzzzzz

Ok, not a good time. Believe it or not I've just come out of a meeting with loads of not too happy ex -prisoners so my head is about to explode.

I'll get back to you on this.

 

[oh shit]

not to oversimplify this but - I don't know of any provision in the law that says you are to be more leniant towards rich kids. Isn't it more often a case of the prejudices of those who decide i.e. judges (as opposed to the actual law)

i could be wrong and no better a lady to set me straight oh queen buzzo

institutionalised classism is a bit hard to simplify. but undeniably, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are over represented in the mechanisms of the criminal justice system, from police targeting of crime to punishment.

to simplify, there are broadly three schools of thought on this...
lombrosian, or positivist - crime is inherent in these people, there is a criminal gene; or a pathological explanation for deviance. (bullshit)

liberal - there is a culture of crime among the working class that makes them more likely to engage in crime. (partially true, but missing the point)

critical - advanced capitalism requires a surplus of labour, it necessarily creates inequalities and dispossession; but at the same time is based on property acquisition as the means to freedom and power. this contradiction marginalises people from the means of accumulating capital; and this must be managed, either through equality based redistribution, or authoritarian criminalisation of marginalised groups... hence institutionalised classism, racism, targeting of youth, etc. (me and queen buzzo (i think))

so while there is no law stating 'go easy on the rich kids' there's more than enough prejudice, moral panics, and common sense assumptions and expectations to ensure there might as well be.

 

[broken arm]

institutionalised classism is a bit hard to simplify. but undeniably, people from lower socio-economic backgrounds are over represented in the mechanisms of the criminal justice system, from police targeting of crime to punishment.

that is a global constant.

critical - advanced capitalism requires a surplus of labour, it necessarily creates inequalities and dispossession; but at the same time is based on property acquisition as the means to freedom and power. this contradiction marginalises people from the means of accumulating capital; and this must be managed, either through equality based redistribution, or authoritarian criminalisation of marginalised groups... hence institutionalised classism, racism, targeting of youth, etc. (me and queen buzzo (i think))

I've said before that I don't really think 'capitalism' exists anymore but anyways - but I don't have a strict definition of what I mean, something to do with power in markets. I have heard this argument of capitalism and apparent contradictions of equality and the dissonance that exists urging people to follow certain patterns of behaviour.

The only thing I can say to that is 'crime' and classifications of crime exist in all tiers and iterations of society and as such crime exists outside capitalism. There is also the fact that many people from similar socio-economic groupings don't resort to direct crime, so to say that capitalism, advanced or not, is directly responsible is probably not correct. In the same way I think people who blame movies for youth violence, or specific incidents of violence are, missing the point

There may be something more base, in terms of human action, in relation to consumption and the creation of meaning thrown into a mix of disenfranchisment - but maybe not.

so while there is no law stating 'go easy on the rich kids' there's more than enough prejudice, moral panics, and common sense assumptions and expectations to ensure there might as well be.

my point on this was that it may be simply down to the prejudices of the judges. i.e. the problem is with the operational aspects of the 'system' rather than the technical aspects.

there is also something in the previous lack of awareness or ability of measuring the effects of white collar, corporate, political crime on society as a whole. E.g. it may never have been fully appreciated the effects of planning corruption on the spatial development of our country and it implications for sustainable development. The implications are often massive and long term.






oh and potlach - I read a letter in the paper today from a chap in LSE and he was commenting about their being no statistical link between good governance and economic growth. I'll have to follow up onit though

 

[azezelo]

I've said before that I don't really think 'capitalism' exists anymore

Really? What do you think has taken its place?

 

[oh shit]

that is a global constant.

not sure what your point is here. elites exist in every society. advanced capitalist ones tend to be the ones that have a similar legal system to our own, hence the relevance.

I've said before that I don't really think 'capitalism' exists anymore but anyways - but I don't have a strict definition of what I mean, something to do with power in markets. I have heard this argument of capitalism and apparent contradictions of equality and the dissonance that exists urging people to follow certain patterns of behaviour.

The only thing I can say to that is 'crime' and classifications of crime exist in all tiers and iterations of society and as such crime exists outside capitalism. There is also the fact that many people from similar socio-economic groupings don't resort to direct crime, so to say that capitalism, advanced or not, is directly responsible is probably not correct. In the same way I think people who blame movies for youth violence, or specific incidents of violence are, missing the point

at no point did i say that capitalism is criminogenic. critical criminology does not seek to explain the causes of crime, rather the processes that define it and react to it. nor does it as a school of thought (or i as an individual) suppose that 'capital' is the be all and end all of the argument. i said i was going to simplify

nulla poena sine lege - no crime without law. that goes back to the Romans. there are no acts that are inherently crimes. there is only the act itself. the process of defining 'crime' follows, and it derives from the laws of the state, dominant ideologies, societal power relations. positivism and cultural pathologies of criminality neglect the role of the state and the overarching structural contexts of how we construct crime and decide punishments. you may not believe in 'capitalism' (intruiging) but whatever your explanation for it there exists a hierarchical state with a monopoly on legitimate uses of violence, and it employs this violence against identifiable groups with extreme discrimination.

my point on this was that it may be simply down to the prejudices of the judges. i.e. the problem is with the operational aspects of the 'system' rather than the technical aspects.

what you are advancing here is a cultural pathology of judges. in other words the law itself is just and right but it is the actions of individual judges that cause disparity.
that argument, to me, is not sustainable in the face of sustained critical analysis. it is a cop-out, completely seperating the personal agencies of individual judges from their position in the structure of society and the history of the criminal justice system.

long before a defendant is brought before a judge they must be arrested by the police. this relies on the police concentrating resources to crimes in certain areas, questioning certain individuals, stopping and searching, and so forth.
following arrest a decision is required... has the accused broken a statutory law? and if so, will the state prosecute?
then, can the individual afford private defence, or will a legal aid counsel be required?
then, a jury trial or not. this is important. recently the right to a jury trial was removed in the UK for many petty crimes. this has had a direct effect on the levels of convictions of black defendants, for example.
finally, the sentencing. it is more lenient for some than others, and there is a correlation with sentencing and class, race, and gender.

do you think that at every stage of the criminal justice system discrimination is solely related to the personal prejudices of individuals?
and if so, where do these arise from?

there is also something in the previous lack of awareness or ability of measuring the effects of white collar, corporate, political crime on society as a whole. E.g. it may never have been fully appreciated the effects of planning corruption on the spatial development of our country and it implications for sustainable development. The implications are often massive and long term.

I think rather than an end to capitalism, what we've seen is a latter-day realisation that there is a 'ceiling' to unchecked accumulation, and that is what requires 'sustainable development' and a new concept of 'white collar crime'.

oh and potlach - I read a letter in the paper today from a chap in LSE and he was commenting about their being no statistical link between good governance and economic growth. I'll have to follow up onit though

that's not surprising, the industrial revolution and the development of advanced capitalism all took place against a cheery backdrop of imperialism, colonialism, execution of petty criminals, the birth of the prison, war, and so forth.
part of the problem with the washington consensus on aid is that it measures success in terms of growth, growth being measured by GDP. good governance as i think we understand it is mostly irrelevant.

if you have a spare hour have a read at that article i linked to before, it makes much more sense than i do!

 

[broken arm]

Really? What do you think has taken its place?

hey - It is really just an observation of mine in terms of how economists and political jobbies define the 'system'. We now have the 'market system' as opposed to capitalism. Some may see this as simply a deflection over the last 10+ years from the negative connotations of 'capitalism' as a term.

but it also relates to the issue of power and how power no longer lies directly with the owner of capital, means of production and productive space. Modern economic power lies with management and corporate bureaucracy. the transfer of power has also changed.

edit - hadn't finished.

but this shift in terminology favours those in control of the economy as it removes the issue of wealth concentration and uses impersonal forces - i.e. the market.

on a practical level - In my job i regularly meet with policy makers, senior civil servants, people from industry (corporations and sme's) and the issuje of economy and 'competitive advantage' is always discussed in terms of the market.

I could get into the details of this but i'll probably bore you.

 

[broken arm]

have to keep this short

not sure what your point is here.

hello - i was kind of agreeing with your point.

at no point did i say that capitalism is criminogenic. critical criminology does not seek to explain the causes of crime, rather the processes that define it and react to it. nor does it as a school of thought (or i as an individual) suppose that 'capital' is the be all and end all of the argument. i said i was going to simplify

well, the issue was offered as one of the schools of thought no? but if critical criminology seeks to define the process of definition and reaction to crime are the 'findings' not relative?

what you are advancing here is a cultural pathology of judges.

...........................do you think that at every stage of the criminal justice system discrimination is solely related to the personal prejudices of individuals?

and if so, where do these arise from?

well, I used judges as an example but this was my question to Aoife. If there are no provisions that discriminate on socio-cultural groups then the discrimination partly belongs to the operative aspects of the the law i.e. those charged with enacting the law. There may be a number of combining factors that amount to discrimination but I'm not an expert of criminal law so I can't say if this is the case

I think rather than an end to capitalism, what we've seen is a latter-day realisation that there is a 'ceiling' to unchecked accumulation, and that is what requires 'sustainable development' and a new concept of 'white collar crime'.

in some circles the issue of sustainable development is the removal of any ceilings to production and the continuation of accumulation etc. Even after the last 20 years of discussing the issue the decoupling effect (economic growth from environmental destruction) is still a myth.

The issue of white collar crime has had a lot to to with quantification - not that that makes the crimes less severe. I remember having a heated argument with my course director on this issue. He didn't recognise the need to run white collar criminals through the same system a everyone else. he was basing it on issues of direct threat and all that.

that's not surprising, the industrial revolution and the development of advanced capitalism all took place against a cheery backdrop of imperialism, colonialism, execution of petty criminals, the birth of the prison, war, and so forth.

part of the problem with the washington consensus on aid is that it measures success in terms of growth, growth being measured by GDP. good governance as i think we understand it is mostly irrelevant.

em - that point was only to with the fact that some countries (US) dispute their Aid 'obligations' because of corrupt governments but some economists dispute this.

if you have a spare hour have a read at that article i linked to before, it makes much more sense than i do!

will do but am have to get busy busy. another day another dollar.

 

[azezelo]

Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be smart and thanks for your answer.
In all honesty, I'm not sure I grasp the difference between 'markets' and 'capital' - to me it sounds like an issue of semantics rather than substance, but as my bank statement would show you, I've never had a particularly firm grasp on economic concepts.
Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. It's very detailed and I appreciate the time you took.

 

[broken arm]

to me it sounds like an issue of semantics rather than substance,

that is mostly true. but capitalism itself has always been under debate as to whether or not it is a system or a concept/. there is also debates on the levels of capitalism withing societies and the mixtures and evolutions of it. I just think it is interesting and important to realise the changes that are taking place in the economy. As i said, I have to talk with people (business, political) in work and the forces are defined in terms of the 'market'. I'm sure this could be expanded on by the sociologists and economists among us.........

I think i mentioned earlier about being interested in seeing how economic mechanisms change over time (something like economic anthropology)...........................................................

 

[broken arm]

The government should do more to tackle economic and social reasons behind anti-social behaviour, according to the Institute of Criminal Policy Research.



Researchers said most UK residents did not experience the problem, which was mainly felt by those in deprived areas.



Their study also calls for the scope of anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) to be more clearly defined.



The Home Office said a recent inquiry suggested the government's approach to anti-social behaviour is "about right".

A new report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, based on the research, says the scope of Asbos should be better defined and they should only be used within "agreed limits".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4614821.stm




and if anyone ios interested the joseph rowntree foundation has some other interesting studies on issues related to social exclusion

 

[aoboa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4071968.stm

 

[oh shit]

ASBOs vs Northern Ireland Act

exciting developments for any legal nerds out there!

this guy is challenging the legality of ASBOs in Northern Ireland. he's not appealing against the decision to serve him with an ASBO, he's saying that the law that allows a local authority to apply for asbos here is itself illegal.

the legislation was basically 'transplanted' into northern ireland law last year by the labour ministers who are assigned to the northern ireland office. there's nothing wrong or unusual about that, it's direct rule and it's how things work here when we don't have our own wee assembly up and running.

it was a stupid idea in the first place. in england, local councils run a lot of local public institutions - the council can be responsible for hospitals, schools, and so forth. under asbo legislation local councils are responsible, along with police and housing executives, for applying for asbos and for checking they aren't breached. in theory (but not in practice) they can then co-ordinate all local bodies to ensure asbos are regulated properly and those served with them have a decent chance at not breaching their asbo.

in norn iron, councils are responsible for collecting bins and picking up shit. that's it, and they're not even good at that. it's fucking terrifying to think of the bible-bashing puritanical maniacs who will be given the power to apply asbos here if this judicial review fails... but i'm getting ahead of myself.

anyway, the legislation came in but needed a ton of guidelines for local authorities to figure out how to use them properly. they were finalised and distributed in febuary.

since then we've had four or five asbos issued, not a lot.

this is where it gets really interesting!
following the good friday agreement the northern ireland act 1998 was passed. it set up the assembly and so forth, and devolved power to belfast. that part of the act is currently suspended but the rest of it is still law.

part of the deal was the establishment of a human rights commission and an equality commission. section 75 of the NIA 1998 requires that all the functions of public bodies be EQA'd - checked out by the equality commission to ensure the procedures are not discriminatory.

the ASBO legislation was not EQA'd. asbos are patently discriminatory against young people and other marginalised groups, not to mention those with mental illnesses, as several cases in england illustrate. if the NIO ministers had EQA'd the legislation, the commission would have rejected ASBOs or at least heavily regulated their implementation.

so the government basically stuck two fingers up at the body that it created. a judicial review is where the high court examines the legality of the actions of government or public bodies, and that's what's going to happen now, thanks to the dodgy fucker who is taking this case.

if the court finds that the legislation is illegal, then no more asbos in norn iron. at least not without some re-writing and strict control to make sure they are used 'fairly' (which to me seems impossible).

if the court says it's ok, then the equality commission, the human rights commission, and section 75 will be exposed as the toothless liberal fobs that many people already think they are. it will also signal to the DUP and Sinn Fein that literally everything from the 1998 Agreement is now up for grabs, and that none of the progress made here in the last ten years is secure.

well that's all we have time for tonight, i do hope you enjoyed reading.