Screw education, go to prison, get money after release!

[Shuriken]

I can't really describe how incredulous this is

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17266825

[JennyWren]

It's the companies that employ them getting the money, not the ex-cons themselves.

I think it's a good scheme. People who are just getting out of prison must have a bitch of a time trying to find work - it's hard enough if you haven't been in jail at the moment. People are so much more likely to re-offend if they don't have work (little money, little hope of turning thier lives around), so in the long term, it'll cost the economy more if we don't do this sceme. They re-offend; they go through the whole justice system again - courts, lawyers, paying for them to be in jail etc etc.

[Shuriken]

Companies are more likely to employ people that give the company more money which in turn gives ex-con's easier money. Employing graduates would help clear their debt and boost growth, confidence and give a point to going to uni. If you ran a company and were given a choice of employing someone or employing someone and receiving money which would you choose?

IMO if you're a convicted felon then you forfeit social support the moment you're convicted. If they want people to stop reoffending then we need to stop making prison resorts. At the moment they're allowed to go onto benefits, just as any graduate is so why should someone who's wronged society get more benefit than someone who's got the aptitude, fortitude and skills to better the economy? Or even school/college leavers who choose work over crime?

There's not enough jobs to go around as it is, giving employers incentive to further ignore more qualified employees to get a quick buck is ridiculous.

[JennyWren]

I don't think people should lose their rights (e.g. financial support) simply because they make a mistake. These people need more support; not less.

Probably ex-cons and ex-uni students wont be in the market for the same jobs anyway, so I don't really think that argument stands true.

IMO the best way to get people to stop re-offending is to give them a genuine alternative - for example - helping them in to work after they get out of prison....

[Shuriken]

Given the amount of jobs don't meet the level of people looking for jobs, graduates have no choice but to take the same jobs. I know several people, some with multiple degrees, who have menial jobs. I should have probably stated it a bit clearer though, I don't expect a full stripping of rights (if it was to me though, they'd be handed over to laboratories instead of prisons, but that's another matter) but I cannot ever endorse a system that gives criminals even a tangential advantage in a decrepit jobs market while there are people who don't break the law going for the same jobs.

All I'd ever really ask for is even footing for all, no matter which way you look at it, this isn't fair or free from bias.

[Aceo]

Last I checked, this is about even footing for all. Convicts have done their time and still people won't employ them, the incentive is to give them a chance to live their lives well.

[Shuriken]

Even footing by making a bias switch? Please explain

[JennyWren]

People don't want to employ criminals, so they are at a disadvantage on the job front.

Two otherwise equal people, with and without a conviction go for a job, the non-convict is going to get it every time.

If there's a financial incentive for taking on the ex-con, sometimes the employer might over look the conviction and the ex-con might get the job instead of the other candidate, but probably not in a lot of cases.

[Garner]

It's a hard one.

One one front, ex-convicts should be given an equal opportunity for work, where appropriate, when they leave prison but as we can see from society, this is not the case usually. However, i don't believe that someone who does not have a conviction shouldnt ultimately suffer a dent to their chances of getting the same job an ex-convict is also going for just because there is a financial incentive involved to employ the ex-convict.

Obviously in X amount of cases, the ex-convict could be natuarally better suited to the job which makes him more employable than the person who has never had a conviction however, by adding the incentive, there will always be a talking point.

The only way to solve this would be to have a world with no prejudice and no victimisation. That is unfortunately not the case.

[re# Skilgannon]

once you have served your time you have paid for your crime in theory, ostracising people because of served time is likely to make them re-offend, yes strip some rights while in prison serving their sentence but once they come out they should be supported into being productive and contributing members of society

[Canaletto]

If you execute any criminal who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for crimes above a certain threshold/severity in the law (with supporting evidence), then you don't have to worry about them re-offending, you don't have to worry about the cost to the tax payer and you don't have to worry about them taking your jobs. I think this would also be a pretty good incentive for some of them to not even bother in the first place.

On top of that, why not stop people on benefits from having children? This breeds the main section of criminals in my opinion. And stop the Church from banning contraception, that will help alleviate poverty, which leads to crime also. There was an interesting statistic that no one could explain in the US in the late 80's: crime was going through the roof year on year and then, one year, it just dropped, massively. In Freakanomics, the author proposed that at that point, it was 18 years after they made abortion legal in the US, so poor and single mothers who would have otherwise had unwanted children, got them aborted. Interesting conclusion. No one has been able to give another reason.

Perhaps I am being un-realistic or harsh (no doubt controversial), however, at some point, something is going to break on our planet and we will not be able to turn back. Stop sympathizing with people who are breaking the law, they broke the law, tough shit. If they committed a crime that justified several years in prison they waived their rights.

Do something about the root cause. Education is key. Stopping religion is key. Population control is key. The concept of human rights fails to take into account the rights of all the other humans when a single human is out of order. Stop focusing on individual and think more about the bigger picture and where we are heading.

[Binerexis]

If you execute any criminal who is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for crimes above a certain threshold/severity in the law (with supporting evidence), then you don't have to worry about them re-offending, you don't have to worry about the cost to the tax payer and you don't have to worry about them taking your jobs. I think this would also be a pretty good incentive for some of them to not even bother in the first place.

Except that the death penalty doesn't deter and you'd be spending tax money on the executions thereby making all tax payers against the death penalty murderers against their will.

It isn't justice, it's a wanton massacre.

[Bobbobthebob]

Can we just stop pretending that the introduction of capital punishment won't kill innocent people? Ian Hislop puts it better than I can:

[Canaletto]

Gotta do something drastic, it is the only thing humans understand

[Aceo]

Last I checked, we're all human and we all understand. So no, drastic isn't the only thing we understand.

[Binerexis]

Gotta do something drastic, it is the only thing humans understand

Sending innocent people to their deaths is something I will never understand. With something that drastic, you can't take it back and I'm not going to be the one to tell the family about the mistake. Are you? Also, as I said above, the death sentence as a deterrent does not work. Death row in America is a shining example of this.

The topic of capital punishment in this country has been done to death (pardon the pun) and the final consensus has been this: We're not going to adopt it again and we're not going to waste our time voting on the matter or bringing it up.

[Little_Devil]

This appears to have drifted somewhat, someone who is dead doesn't get any benefit so its completely off topic.

As far as offenders are concerned, the state ostracises criminals as much as anyone else and quite needlessly in many cases. Anyone with any criminal offence cannot get certain types of jobs, even people who have never been to jail, whereas graduates can most likely work in any job, depending on which useless degree they have gone for

Offenders being limited by the state on what type of jobs they can get, do need the extra help.

People tend to go to the extremes, when thinking of offenders, but many people have been jailed over the years which are for stupid offences, deemed at the time as being politically correct, yet may not fall into the category of a serious offender.

[Canaletto]

Which is why I clearly stated, that this was not for any old conviction... but for serious and proven ones. We tolerate too much. Yes we are all human, but not all the same, mentally, physically etc... you cannot apply one size fits all rules.

Just like human rights... I believe after a certain level of crime human rights should be forfeit or we will never advance as a society proper. Just like that jihadist preacher who could not be deported from Britain due to human rights. He campaigns for the bombing and death of people who live in the country he fled to and we can't send him back? F**k OFF tbh

We need to wake up and realise our progression as a civilised society is being stunted by this way of thinking. Murderers and thieves and rapists realise they can get away with it, so they continue.

[Binerexis]

Killing criminals doesn't advance us and isn't a mark of a civilised society. As I said before and will keep on saying, the death penalty has no deterrent effect.

[Little_Devil]

The topic heading is clear, 'Screw education, go to prison, get money after release!' and not what we should be doing with serious criminals or terrorists, which could be an entirely different topic.