Unicef criticises Britain for jailing children over riots

[Atheist-Lite]

Prison, the hangmans rope and the stocks. All should be local. People judged by their true peers whenever possible. Prison and the hangmans rope is for the dangerous ones. Keep justice natural and keep it local. We'll have to wait for the population crash before we can return to the foundations of natural justice. At present the 'system' is a reflection of massive over-population and the ionisation/fragmentation of society where no one knows no one. It only half works but then it could be worse, and it won't get better.

[Robert_S]

Prison, the hangmans rope and the stocks. All should be local. People judged by their true peers whenever possible. Prison and the hangmans rope is for the dangerous ones. Keep justice natural and keep it local. We'll have to wait for the population crash before we can return to the foundations of natural justice. At present the 'system' is a reflection of massive over-population and the ionisation/fragmentation of society where no one knows no one. It only half works but then it could be worse, and it won't get better.

US history shows that a broader geographical range can produce more fairness for victims of local prejudices.

[Atheist-Lite]

Prison, the hangmans rope and the stocks. All should be local. People judged by their true peers whenever possible. Prison and the hangmans rope is for the dangerous ones. Keep justice natural and keep it local. We'll have to wait for the population crash before we can return to the foundations of natural justice. At present the 'system' is a reflection of massive over-population and the ionisation/fragmentation of society where no one knows no one. It only half works but then it could be worse, and it won't get better.

US history shows that a broader geographical range can produce more fairness for victims of local prejudices.

Things are easier to balance in a small country. The US is too large, there's a unsustainable prison population - mostly colored...doesn't seem fair from here.

[Ronja]

... I think punishment is a theistic concept. This is not to do with my "mood" it is to do with my opinion. I did not say it was an exclusively christian concept...

Right. And therefore, from 4:10 forward in this video, we are witnessing the behavior of a theistic (though not necessarily xian) male baboon:



/sarcasm

Exi5, do get real. All social mammals, including us humans, have various forms of reward and punishment firmly built into their/our cultures. The exact forms that reward and punishment take vary from one group of the same species to another and more widely between species, but we all, from shrews to blue whales, routinely engage in reward and punishment as parts of our social interaction. You cannot believably tie the "concept" of punishment to anything as recent as human religions.

[Robert_S]

Prison, the hangmans rope and the stocks. All should be local. People judged by their true peers whenever possible. Prison and the hangmans rope is for the dangerous ones. Keep justice natural and keep it local. We'll have to wait for the population crash before we can return to the foundations of natural justice. At present the 'system' is a reflection of massive over-population and the ionisation/fragmentation of society where no one knows no one. It only half works but then it could be worse, and it won't get better.

US history shows that a broader geographical range can produce more fairness for victims of local prejudices.

Things are easier to balance in a small country. The US is too large, there's a unsustainable prison population - mostly colored...doesn't seem fair from here.

It would be worse in some areas were it not for the federal government.

[charlou]

I know little about the details of this aspect of the treatment of rioters. I'm concerned that so many children are in custody, though ... What are the individual circumstances of the children who remain in custody?

[Atheist-Lite]

I know little about the details of this aspect of the treatment of rioters. I'm concerned that so many children are in custody, though ... What are the individual circumstances of the children who remain in custody?

They're growing up fast, now, I would guess?

[charlou]

Their circumstances may already have accelerated certain aspects of their experiences. That's part of my point.

[Rum]

As so often Exi is speaking bollocks from a point of ignorance with his conclusions well in place before the facts and arguments.

The 'rioters' are an exception and dealt with in the draconian way they were because there was a panic following the disorder and the government wanted to send out a strong message that this behaviour was not acceptable.

In the normal course of events the juvenile criminal justice system, while in actual fact is not I will grant very effective in stopping re-offending, does go out of its way to keep children and young people out of the system. So called 'diversion' is the rule, based on the assumption that the best way to keep kids from offending is to make sure they are not 'criminalised' by getting involved in the criminal justice system unless it is felt to be really necessary. As a result there are several stages which take place before a young person gets any where near a court, from warnings, 'educational' interventions and so on.

Youth Offending Services (I used to be on the executive board of one until not long ago) have targets for diverting kids from the courts, for reducing custodial sentences and for early intervention. To suggest that the system is based in some ancient religious retribution bollocks is indeed total bollocks.

[colubridae]

In many ways Christianity as we know it is a Roman legacy

Errrr.

I'm interested in why you post this kind of drivel.

You aren’t stupid. You know it will be jumped on.
You know it’s drivel.
So why?

[JimC]

XC wrote:

...You are tiresome in the extreme in your insistence on being right in every glib, unsubstantiated, monochromatic claim that you make...

[Exi5tentialist]

... I think punishment is a theistic concept. This is not to do with my "mood" it is to do with my opinion. I did not say it was an exclusively christian concept...

Exi5, do get real. All social mammals, including us humans, have various forms of reward and punishment firmly built into their/our cultures. The exact forms that reward and punishment take vary from one group of the same species to another and more widely between species, but we all, from shrews to blue whales, routinely engage in reward and punishment as parts of our social interaction. You cannot believably tie the "concept" of punishment to anything as recent as human religions.

Ronja, comments like 'get real' are not helpful to a thoughtful debate. Human beings are not pre-programmed to have a system of reward and punishment. If you believe that nature instilled punishment as a social construction in human civilization then you obviously believe that we have no choice and no freedom to as humans to reject the concept of punishment as a component of civilization.

If I could momentarily reflect your baboon sarcasm, which again is unnecessary, I think your position shows that you have not evolved very much beyond your theistic indoctrination. This shows a very important difference between new atheism and existential atheism. Existentialists believe that beyond a few very basic characteristics that are 'given' (eg our hearts beat, we live), human beings are absolutely free to define themselves and make whatever choices they want. New atheism makes no such leap of imagination into the possibility of a different way of being for society. It prefers to concentrate its time on sniping at religious organisations, while at the same time happily taking on board lock, stock and barrel the theistic legacies that are cornerstones of our society.

One of these cornerstones is the whole guilt-culture of God's wrath and divine retribution for sin. You don't have to have been a Roman Catholic to have been on the receiving end of this particular form of oppression. It reaches out into every aspect of our theistically-based society, protestant and catholic. Basically, pain is inflicted because God says so when you have done wrong in the eyes of the theocracy. The way the judicial system is organised is founded on this Christian concept of punishment. Throughout the west we only need to think of 19th century christian values and the way they seeped into judicial systems, which to us now appear as an inhuman caracature of punishment, to realise that this is true, and how little our assumptions about punishment have evolved since then.

All you have done in making reference to other mammals is replace God with Nature. Instead of saying God requires punishment for sin, you now say that nature requires punishment for sin. This is a good example of atheists not thinking through the consequences of the non-existence of God through.

Do remember when I say punishment I am talking about the inflicting of pain, which nowadays in done in terms of incarceration. As a punishment I think this is a brutal and antiquated form of sadism born of religious retribution. I am not, however, talking about protecting society from risk. Punishment and risk management are different things. Clearly it does appear to be necessary to separate some dangerous individuals from society because of the risks they posed. So rather than "guilty or not guilty?" my question to the jury would be "risky or not risky?".

As a society I think we need to move away from the confusion between guilt as an emotion and guilt as an official declaration of criminality. Exploring alternatives to this confusion would be a productive exercise for atheists. It is sad that so many attempts to dismiss the very act of discussion have been made in this thread in favour of traditional punitive thinking, whose provenance I would have thought serious atheists would recognise as being extremely suspect.

[Rum]

I read your response very carefully and I am beginning to understand the angle you are taking, but even so.. -' risk management' might mean you have to lock someone up for a few years..but that isn't actually punishment...

I don't think so.

[DaveD]

I read your response very carefully and I am beginning to understand the angle you are taking, but even so.. -' risk management' might mean you have to lock someone up for a few years..but that isn't actually punishment...

I don't think so.

Junior Gitmo?

[Ronja]

... I think punishment is a theistic concept. This is not to do with my "mood" it is to do with my opinion. I did not say it was an exclusively christian concept...

Exi5, do get real. All social mammals, including us humans, have various forms of reward and punishment firmly built into their/our cultures. The exact forms that reward and punishment take vary from one group of the same species to another and more widely between species, but we all, from shrews to blue whales, routinely engage in reward and punishment as parts of our social interaction. You cannot believably tie the "concept" of punishment to anything as recent as human religions.

Ronja, comments like 'get real' are not helpful to a thoughtful debate. Human beings are not pre-programmed to have a system of reward and punishment. If you believe that nature instilled punishment as a social construction in human civilization

I don't. You are leaping quite far to reach that conclusion from what I wrote. I do believe that we (all social mammals) have the genetic tendencies to behave in a group that have given an evolutionary advantage to the ancestors of each species. Those genetic tendencies make certain types of individual and group behavior statistically more likely than others, even for mammals with so large and well functioning a cerebral cortex (mainly frontal lobes) that they/we are self-aware and can analyze their/our own behavior and choices.

For example, in a group, tensions over resources will rise between individuals, that is inevitable. That in such situations relatively few individuals in a group are "authorized" (have gained a role/position that enables them) to use physical force against other members of the group would seem to offer a survival bonus compared to a free-for-all approach (the reasons for that should be a no-brainer). Of course the bonobos have figured out the likely most beneficial way of easing social tensions...

then you obviously believe that we have no choice and no freedom to as humans to reject the concept of punishment as a component of civilization.

Even if your above "if" clause had been true, this would still be an asininely illogical statement. You assume as "obvious" (=apparently in some magical, undocumented manner revealed to you personally) waaayyyy too much about what other people think or feel. Which is not helpful to a thoughtful debate, and may easily buy you some exasperated and/or sarcastic comments from others. If you don't like frustrated discussion partners or sarcasm, don't throw around claims that you don't have and cannot get any evidence for. Seriously.

If I could momentarily reflect your baboon sarcasm, which again is unnecessary, I think your position shows that you have not evolved very much beyond your theistic indoctrination.

. This claim is ridiculous to the point of being somewhat entertaining, so thanks for that. FYI: my dad was an atheist - the abusive indoctrination that I was subjected to was definitely not based on any theistic concepts - unless you want to move the goalposts again and claim that any parental abuse must in some magical, revealed-to-you-only manner become a "theistic influence" due to parents being "gods" for their young children or something.

This shows a very important difference between new atheism and existential atheism. Existentialists believe that beyond a few very basic characteristics that are 'given' (eg our hearts beat, we live), human beings are absolutely free to define themselves and make whatever choices they want. New atheism makes no such leap of imagination into the possibility of a different way of being for society. It prefers to concentrate its time on sniping at religious organisations, while at the same time happily taking on board lock, stock and barrel the theistic legacies that are cornerstones of our society.

One of these cornerstones is the whole guilt-culture of God's wrath and divine retribution for sin. You don't have to have been a Roman Catholic to have been on the receiving end of this particular form of oppression. It reaches out into every aspect of our theistically-based society, protestant and catholic. Basically, pain is inflicted because God says so when you have done wrong in the eyes of the theocracy. The way the judicial system is organised is founded on this Christian concept of punishment. Throughout the west we only need to think of 19th century christian values and the way they seeped into judicial systems, which to us now appear as an inhuman caracature of punishment, to realise that this is true, and how little our assumptions about punishment have evolved since then.

Evidence for any of that? As in links to systematic analyses that are based on actual data? Or at least links to other people's opinions in addition to you own? If not, that^^ is baseless drivel and therefore uninteresting.

All you have done in making reference to other mammals is replace God with Nature. Instead of saying God requires punishment for sin, you now say that nature requires punishment for sin. This is a good example of atheists not thinking through the consequences of the non-existence of God through.

I think a more accurate description here would be: this^^ is another example of you leaping to conclusions and therefore misunderstanding another person's position rather monumentally.

Do remember when I say punishment I am talking about the inflicting of pain, which nowadays in done in terms of incarceration. As a punishment I think this is a brutal and antiquated form of sadism born of religious retribution. I am not, however, talking about protecting society from risk. Punishment and risk management are different things. Clearly it does appear to be necessary to separate some dangerous individuals from society because of the risks they posed. So rather than "guilty or not guilty?" my question to the jury would be "risky or not risky?".

As a society I think we need to move away from the confusion between guilt as an emotion and guilt as an official declaration of criminality. Exploring alternatives to this confusion would be a productive exercise for atheists. It is sad that so many attempts to dismiss the very act of discussion have been made in this thread in favour of traditional punitive thinking, whose provenance I would have thought serious atheists would recognise as being extremely suspect.

These last two paragraphs almost make sense (a bit too much religion still, but you definitely have something there). So why on earth do you lead your reader to these last paragraphs through a quagmire of shoddy guesswork, overinterpretation and lack of evidence? It looks almost as if you *wanted* people to dismiss your views - but how would that be rational?