Arse. On.

[ewt]

No, I don't think that surveillance etc. is related to the Cutty Sark catching fire, or not particularly.

I don't think flagging people as likely to commit crimes is going to reduce crime without "pre-punishing" a lot of innocent people; not without a major overhaul of the NHS, anyway.

They say the Cutty Sark might have been an arson thing. It could just as easily have been negligence or accident, and I do understand that. My point was, if you have a habit of going around setting fire to things, you probably don't go tell the police about it. Now, if this "must alert police to people who might be dangerous" thing goes ahead, you won't go tell your doctor about it either. This is not going to help you stop setting fire to things. What will help you stop setting fire to things? Deterrent, maybe, if you know you'll get caught and you have a reasonable expectation of NOT getting nailed for something if you DON'T set fire to things. Psychological help, maybe, if the NHS doesn't wait 3 years to treat you. Being put in jail, almost definitely, but there are an awful lot of people who "might be" violent... an awful lot more than there is space for in jail. Unless we start building gulags now (or I'm missing something), we can't jail people on a preventative basis.

So. We can't put people in jail for being the sort of person who might set fire to things. We can try to get them mental help, if they want it, but that isn't going to happen if they're scared of other negative consequences attached to seeking help. As soon as we start trying to put people under surveillance or other limitations for being the sort of person who MIGHT set fire to things, the difference between the result of doing the crime and the result of not doing the crime gets much smaller... it's like getting told you have to stay in all evening if you don't finish your supper, when you're already grounded anyway. If you're already under surveillance and you know it or reasonably suspect it, and you knwo that they can't send you to jail because it's too damn full and they can't shoot you because we mostly don't do that in this country (yet), what are they going to do? Those curfew leg-ring things? How different is that from surveillance...? Okay, maybe very different, but is the perception of it much different? I'm guessing not.

Replace "setting fire to things" with any of the other crimes they might be talking about. The Cutty Sark is just the possible crime that I happened to have the newspage open for at the time.

Comments

[spangle-kitten.livejournal.com]

I think it's mad, people with mental health problems often beleive it's the doctors that are turning them in already, telling them they _are_ turning them in means they won't say anything or go to the doctor.

This country has a disgusting attitude to mental health problems anyway.

We have clients with mental health problems and they get thrown in jail, which does nothing to help them whatsoever. They need decent health care.

Whilst it may be true that many violent crimes, including rape and murder, are carried out by people with mental health problems or personality disorders the actual percentage of people with these problems that actually go on to commit crimes is small.

[redcountess]

It's possible that if the Cutty Sark was deliberately lit, it may have been done by a pyromaniac, but it's more likely a bunch of horrid vandals who saw an opportunity as the ship wasn't secure.

[compilerbitch.livejournal.com]

I think the idea of incarcerating someone for crimes they might commit (but haven't) is utterly unconscionable, so I for one hope that no such legislation is ever passed. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?'

Which reminds me... I saw Minority Report on the plane last week -- it deals with this concept extremely well, making clear the problems that might occur with such a policy *even with* near-infallible prediction. In reality, our ability to predict such behaviour is poor going on nonexistent, which would make any real attempt to introduce 'pre-crime' legislation at best farcical, and at worst fascistic.

[i-am-ariane.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you're saying. :)

Btw, I wasn't targeting you with my rant, I was merely commenting on the two links you gave. And being non-British, I didn't know the law was related to a murder incident (although that doesn't invalidate my point).

Well, I just wanted to make sure you knew I wasn't targeting you. :)

[pplfichi.livejournal.com]

My comment rant was directed entirely at the links and the disclosing dangerous people idea, and not at your opinion. Many apologies if it looked like a personal attack or something