Comments for http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html en-gb 30 Sun 21 Dec 2014 21:04:15 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=99#comment434 I just thought of an ex-friend who is hooked on "crack" cocaine. He's in the computer field making about $120,000.00/yr. His problem was not his "crack" habit, but his alcohol habit which cost him his license for life. That's 7 years here in Connecticut. Sat 03 Apr 2010 05:20:31 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=99#comment433 432. At 02:55am on 03 Apr 2010, Andy wrote:"People with drug addictions cannot hold down job so they have to resort to crime to find there habit, that is why drugs are illegal and legalising them won't change that."Although I don't do drugs, I know many people who do. I know of no one who does drugs who has not been able to keep down a job. In fact, one of them is making $120,000.00/yr., one is making $96,000.00/yr., and still another is making in excess of $60,000.00/yr. w./o. overtime. All but one work for the state. People who do drugs and can't keep their jobs are the ones who couldn't keep a job anyway. The drugs were not the problem. Granted, the ones I know of do marijuana. Still, there are plenty of people who are on cocaine and find no problem going to work and holding down a job.What if THESE people were locked up? How would that serve the best interests of society?Do tell. Sat 03 Apr 2010 04:52:35 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=99#comment432 You don't? Since when? Sat 03 Apr 2010 04:23:55 GMT+1 Andy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=99#comment431 Zunty wrote:DECRIMINALIZE DRUGS !Holland has shown that it works.Remember this: IT WORKS !Why have YOUR tax Dollars/Pounds go to lock up people who do drugs after reading this?WHY !----------------------------------------------------------------Um we don't lock up people for taking drugs, we lock them up when they resort to criminal activities in order to pay for them. People with drug addictions cannot hold down job so they have to resort to crime to find there habit, that is why drugs are illegal and legalising them won't change that. Sat 03 Apr 2010 01:55:53 GMT+1 vexed voter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=98#comment430 So how can a out of touch judge lecture society about being averse to taking the risk of rubbing shoulders with mass murderers, psychopathic robbers and rapists.A judge can ask for police protection. The rest of us have to live with the mistakes the courts and parole boards make.But there is a element of the apologist in this statement and trying to foist the blame for the sentence onto the public.The offender obviously does not have to take any responsibility.What ever happened to the phrase that criminals band around. " If you cant do the time dont do the crime".The courst seem to have rewriten the phrase for us, " Why should criminals do the time for thier crime"? Sat 03 Apr 2010 01:08:15 GMT+1 Grim Death http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=98#comment429 Few people seem to think prison is a nice easy time with cushy luxury's. Go and take a look at your bathroom, image the room with just a bed and no view out of the window, now try staying in there for just 24 hours and tell me that you had a good time.Prison doesn't do any good to anyone, it turns poor unfortunate people into insane criminals which are then released into society as dangerous individuals with no future and a high risk of reoffending.I am not averse to having these people released i am averse to having many of them incarserated in the first place. Sat 03 Apr 2010 00:11:38 GMT+1 ronnie http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=98#comment428 yes society is too risk adverse but what we really need are changes in the law that make criminals crime adverse Sat 03 Apr 2010 00:10:51 GMT+1 aeromyviewis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=98#comment427 I don't believe i'm in a minority here when i say that it appears that human rights are dictating our dudicial system. I've read stories of people receiving harsher sentences for licence fee evesion than those of rapists. Ultimately, for me, i'm worried, and angry that illegal immigrants are inprisoned, at tax payers cost, when, to me, get the hell out of this country! When released, these criminals disapeer, only to re-offend. What have they to lose? Free food, sky tv, snooker tables etc in prison. Put it simply..Britain is too soft, and human rights have too much power! Fri 02 Apr 2010 23:35:41 GMT+1 sean56z http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=97#comment426 Psychiatric medication allows inmates a release from state prison to their communities. Unfortunately, many are committed to state mental hospitals, general hospital psych units, or state forensics centers. Doctors should check for compliance with drugs like zyprexa or zoloft. Inmates rely on the public welfare system. They become pawns in a financial game. Polyclinic Hospital in Harrisburg filled beds with patients for the mental health ward during the 1980s and 1990s to boost revenue. Doctors Herzel and Miller kept patients for months and then billed medicare/medicaid for payment. The state prison system will rehabilitate inmates if they maintain their treatment plans. Psychiatrists who prescribe psychotropic drugs and ECT offer inmates a serious opportunity for a real life outside of jail. Community care programs provide homes and guidance to an independent lifestyle. Fri 02 Apr 2010 23:21:52 GMT+1 Charles Gilbert http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=97#comment425 There is no doubt about the majority of the population being risk averse. Although I consider myself to a be an average member of the community who has no criminal record but in my 58 years I have been visciously attached four times sustaining injuries twice, been burgled only twice (had INSURANCE CLAIM PROBLEMS OF COURSE). I have a son and three friends (including one daughter) who have been recently attacked randomly. Unfortunately the small proportion of criminals who cannot be trusted have to be locked-up until they are no longer a danger. Fri 02 Apr 2010 23:13:21 GMT+1 NethLyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=97#comment424 "411. At 6:56pm on 02 Apr 2010, Cabe UK wrote:Someone said why should child rapists get half the sentence of a fraudster? Dunno - maybe because the majority of child rapists were raped as kids so they are dysfunctional and need psych treatment in prison (which most never get get)."That is one big fat cop-out slandering every non-offending child sexual abuse victim that got off their backside, got therapy and moved on with their life, of which I personally know two. If you have been abused and then **choose** to "pass on" child abuse when you're an adult, no sympathy should be given at trial and if the offenders don't believe they're doing anything wrong, I haven't heard of psych treatment actually working that well, in which case longer sentencing is just fine. You miss the point that child rapists also need protection themselves from a public that knows they won't be punished properly and will still be included in early releases otherwise all that will happen is that Comment 386's alcoholic paedophile might find himself on his way to a kangaroo court filled with vigilantes rather than the real thing if he gives the cops the slip and re-offends again. Fri 02 Apr 2010 23:08:34 GMT+1 grumpovian http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=97#comment423 Absolutely. Keep them in there, transform prisons from luxury hotels to victorian prisons, and let life mean just that-LIFE! Fri 02 Apr 2010 21:47:18 GMT+1 David Lilley http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=97#comment422 Why can Sir David make these kind of comments whilst Professor Nutt cannot? Sir David's comments are equally about suggesting changes to our governace just as Professor Nutt's were. The only difference is that Sir David is assisting the administration in their desire to free up prison places whilst professor Nutt was disagreeing with the administration over its drugs policy.My simple proposal would be to free up prison places by using fines and deducting them via tax code changes for non violent offences like failure to pay council tax. Whilst at the same time keeping all violent and sex offenders in prison until we are sure that they will not re-offend. If they do re-offend they go straight back to prison and loose their priviledge of having their past record kept confidential in court.We should always remember that we are not really talking about citizens crossing a line, being caught and going to prison. We are for the most part talking about a small portion of society going round and round the crime and punishment system some times hundreds of times. For these bad citizens we need bad citizen medicine rather than the criminal justice system that fills the pockets of 10,000s of public employees simply recatching, retrying and reimprisoning them. Some 70% are illiterate, 70% are drug addicts and 70% have mental health problems. The whole business of recatching, retrying and reimprisoning them is so easy that it need not cost 1,000s of hour of employment for the public sector every time it is performed at great cost to the good citizen. It should be automatic.We should choose our bad citizen medicine carefully. We should not let Sir David or anyone who profits from the existing empire building system influence our decisions. And we should remember that many of our bad citizens were provided by bad care homes and the horrors of war. The armed services should do more than demob its mentally scared ex-service men and women. But it should outsource this non core business to a competitive market where success is not an option but the only goal. Fri 02 Apr 2010 21:07:53 GMT+1 Gewyne http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=96#comment421 @ Pea Eye (15)Yes news papers and media should take some responisility for the public becoming more worried about crimes in society. I would say however that the difference in reporting is important. For example; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/8600907.stmhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262984/Teenage-Afghan-asylum-seekers-pool-sex-attack-girl-13.htmlBoth are aborent incidents, but I think most people would agree that it could have been prevented simply by not letting asylum seekers having tax payer funded day trips - the other news outlet of course supress the description of the accused prefering we think it is the work of wicked Engish kids. Fri 02 Apr 2010 20:47:07 GMT+1 leoRoverman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=96#comment420 We are to risk adverse!! well slappa my thigh. I wonder who made us risk adverse but a stupid Health and safety Executive. There must be thousands of silly ruling made because they might hurt someone-like Donkeys on a stretch of sand, wrong kind of materials for the base of a playground, skipping banned in playgrounds- not to mention teachers who can't rescue a five year old from a tree in case the tree sues. Now we are told that we should really stop being so risk averse and expect convicted violent criminals to be let loose amongst us. Now I am getting on a bit- when I was born we were still hanging people- though I stress that I am totally and will always be against Capital punishment because it serves no purpose. If I was risk averse I hardly get out of bed. Fri 02 Apr 2010 20:31:18 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=96#comment419 DECRIMINALIZE DRUGS !Holland has shown that it works.Remember this: IT WORKS !Why have YOUR tax Dollars/Pounds go to lock up people who do drugs after reading this? WHY ! Fri 02 Apr 2010 20:28:20 GMT+1 Wrinklyoldgit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=96#comment418 I do not agree, other than the too easy availability of drugas inside prisons, the prisoners are there for a good reason.The real problem is twofold - the mean stingyness of NuLabour means new prison accommodation is lagging behind the need, and the magistrates/judges are ordered to keep as many out of gaol as possible to reduce the demand on spaces.People who should be behind bars are freee to re-offend.Our criminal justice system is a sick joke. Fri 02 Apr 2010 19:48:39 GMT+1 Not a Tory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=95#comment417 I appreciate most of the comments on this site seem to have a right wing slant... But has the Labour Party unleashed their minions on this website to pour scorn on any opinions they don't agree with? Or is it just the likes of Mandelson logging on here..?A lot of Labour MPs and supporters seem to think they can patronise people into voting for them. Maybe if Labour had used the last 13 years in Government more effectively, there wouldn't be so many people they have to set straight about the 'facts'...(And it's not just about media perceptions, the stories are there, everyone has different experiences and everyone can make up their own minds. Statistics are a different matter...) But I don't agree with Sir David, I don't think the issue has anything to do with risk. There will always be the 'risk' of crimes being committed, whether it be by a first time offender or existing offender, but the issue of early release is about the proper punishment and rehabilitation of criminals. The risk varies greatly with the area you live in and your personal circumstances and I think it's patronising to use the term in this context. Fri 02 Apr 2010 19:37:25 GMT+1 jermala http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=95#comment416 The public all know that the laws (most ratified by this government) are far to lenient ,in fact they think the law an Ass ,so why would they be happy having a rapist or a criminal who has beaten senseless an old age pensioner and left him for dead let out on bail aqfter only serving maybe a year in jail .The public also know that most of these criminals offend again within months of being released ,and when on certain cases the government decide that the public need placating ,usually the outcome of an investigation is "paperwork not followed up" "nobody is to blame" What is so frustrating is there is no accountability ,so obviously why would we want these vermin let out on parole Fri 02 Apr 2010 19:29:32 GMT+1 confusus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=95#comment415 Want to contribute, but if I do and injure my finger on the key board WHO DO I SUE? Fri 02 Apr 2010 19:21:03 GMT+1 glamorgan9560 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=95#comment414 403.... Most people at No.10 are unelected as are the lords and the royal family, however, in 2005 the people voted for PM Blair not for G Brown, as for crime figs sorry anything Labour tells me i take with a pinch of salt. Just look at this country! Keep them banged up until there last day that the judge gave them, and make it as hard as possible for them too. We are to soft in this country and people like this clown (JA) should have a taster of what some scum can do to peoples lives. Fri 02 Apr 2010 18:57:23 GMT+1 Buck_Turgidson http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=94#comment413 richie79 wrote:I'm sorry but forty years of this hoodie hugging poow ickle misunderstood deprived offenders mentality has given us a society where the majority live in fear of youths and daren't walk the streets or use public after dark.Really ?Do you have any evidence that the majority live in fear of youths and daren't walk the streets or use public after dark ?I've had a look for any sources that back up this claim and I can't find any.What I have found is from the British Crime Survey (not perfect but it's one of the biggest surveys of its type):In addition to questions on perceptions of crime levels, the BCS asks how likely people think it is that they will be a victim of crime in the next 12 months. As in previous years, the 2008/09 BCS shows there is a disparity between people’s perceived likelihood of being a victim of crime and their actual risk. For instance, the 2008/09 BCS shows that 16 per centof people thought they were fairly or very likely to be a victim of burglary compared to an actual risk of two per cent.However, there was an overall appreciation of differing levels of risk by crime type: a greater proportion of people thought it more likely that they would be a victim of car crime than either burglary or violent crime which reflects the pattern of actual risk between these three crime types.In terms of worry about crime, the 2008/09 BCS shows there was a decrease in the proportion of people with high levels of worry about violent crime (from 15% to 14%) compared with the previous year. Levels of worry about burglary (11%) and car crime (12%) remained stable (the apparent 1 percentage point decrease in worry about burglary was not statistically significant). The decrease in worry about violence in the 2008/09 BCS follows a fall in all three measures of worry between 2006/07 and 2007/08. Worry about each of thethree crime types has now fallen by more than a third since 1998You can find a link to a PDF of the BCS about two thirds down this page on the home office website:http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.htmlFrom this we can see that;* 16 per cent of people thought they were fairly or very likely to be a victim of burglary* 2008/09 BCS shows there was a decrease in the proportion of people with high levels of worry about violent crime (from 15% to 14%) compared with the previous year* The decrease in worry about violence in the 2008/09 BCS follows a fall in all three measures of worry between 2006/07 and 2007/08. Worry about each of the three crime types has now fallen by more than a third since 1998These yobs would soon get the message if they knew their obnoxious behaviour stood a good chance of landing them in prison - and not a virtual Butlins with Sky TV, pool tables, gyms and a varied menu but somewhere far worse than where they'd come from on the outsideJonathan Aitkin seems to disagree and I'm assuming he's got more personal experience of this issue than you or I:Spartan would be a generous adjective to describe the various cells in which I was incarcerated.Graffiti-encrusted walls; an uncomfortable iron bed with scratchy sheets and blankets; a schoolroom-type chair and tiny table; a miniature clothes locker capable of holding one spare set of the prison uniform; and primitive facilities consisting of a chipped wash basin and a smelly toilet without a seat...these were the standard features of my prison journey.Forget the tall tales about prison today being like a holiday camp, with TV in cells and mobile phones and e-mail connections for all. I never saw any of them.Prison for me was a distinctly uncomfortable experience.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454892/Prison-cells-cost-night-Ritz-Ive-stayed-both.html Fri 02 Apr 2010 18:26:05 GMT+1 Syd Thomson http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=94#comment412 Criminals are sent to prison to serve a punishment. Sentences need to be doubled to act as a possible deterrent not shortened as seems to be the case for this nanny state. Far too much emphasis is placed on prisoners rights. What happened to their victims rights ? Prisoners should for-go all rights apart from basic human rights (clothed, fed and watered). Fri 02 Apr 2010 18:21:10 GMT+1 espresso2go http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=94#comment411 Sir David Latham is asking the wrong question. It is not the amount of risk that society is willing to accept, rather the type of risk that it is prepared to accept. For example, someone getting into a car to drive to point A accepts the risk or risks involved. This will vary from person to person and thus will dictate how or even if the journey will be made. In other words you cannot quantify risk in such absolute terms as Sir David Latham seeks to. What I believe that you can state in absolute terms is that the majority of society is not prepared to accept the risk that some convicted criminals pose when they should in fact be behind bars. With any risk you have three options, remove the risk, minimise it or tolerate it, and why should society tolerate a type of risk that could be avoided not just minimised? Fri 02 Apr 2010 18:10:52 GMT+1 Cabe UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=94#comment410 Someone said why should child rapists get half the sentence of a fraudster? Dunno - maybe because the majority of child rapists were raped as kids so they are dysfunctional and need psych treatment in prison (which most never get get). Whereas fraudsters theives, drink drivers, etc are not dysfunctional and control themselves yet commit crimes because the Want to.. - maybe they are the real 'evil' ones because they are not ill?Interesting that people refuse to acknowledge those who commit crimes are in degrees of separation and madness caused by other things. No one helped child rapists when they were children - where were our parents? They weren't helping them were they?? Yet everyone has an opinion about them now? We are still kinda abusing them in a way arn't we???If one could understand this and changed the way we deal with it we'd have no more criminals = but no one will because it feels Good to hate. Henious criminals are usually dysfunctional end up in prison and find those meant to help them tend to abuse them again instead. So, when they are released they come out a tad pizzed. Could we say this was wholly their fault and put a 'risk' factor on it? Maybe we should sue prison staff for making them worse? Goodness! Our Economy would recover in days! Also, the worst murdering, IRA terrorists who bombed innocent civilians everywhere were set free only after serving a couple of weeks, yet we put suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay detention camp without even being charged ? Kind of an ignorant mentality isn't it? Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:56:44 GMT+1 Electric Hermit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=94#comment409 402. Andy"Liberty does not protect my rights here, the government protects my freedom of speech and we live in a free society."Such child-like innocence... Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:39:57 GMT+1 Electric Hermit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=93#comment408 401. Andy"For any unelected group to stand up and tell me what my human rights are is a violation of my human rights."There is no such thing as "my" human rights. Only human rights. Rights which accrue to an individual by virtue of their being human. Rights which are solely conditional on being a human person and which cannot be limited or constrained in any way.Human rights are quite distinct from civil rights. Civil rights are those rights which fall to a person by virtue of their being a citizen. Civil rights are defined by and subject to to amendment or constraint by political leaders.Human rights exist independently of all other considerations and cannot be altered or limited by any political force no matter how impressive its democratic credentials. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:38:57 GMT+1 TonythetigerIV http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=93#comment407 'The Parole Board chairman added that society had to decide what level of risk it was ready to accept.'Unfortunately society appears to have too little say in the decisions of parole boards who allow some dangerous criminals out on licence and when it all goes wrong don't even get voted out of their jobs because no one elected them in the first place. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:38:00 GMT+1 TonythetigerIV http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=93#comment406 Keeping criminals in prison has nothing to do with society being risk averse and everything to do with punishment as determined by the criminal justice system, or at least it should be. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:33:14 GMT+1 taunton-hobbit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=93#comment405 Whoops ! 'we live in a free society' (Post 402) - actually, we are as free as the government of the day chooses to let us be (or think we are), don't be fooled by the veneer, just be aware of what (potentially) lurks below the surface - opression, censorship, control and erosion of rights, to name but a few.Who watches the watchers?.................. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:30:54 GMT+1 Electric Hermit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=92#comment404 399. Enuf_Zed"If 'Sir' David latham thinks people are 'too risk averse' because they don't want convicted cold blooded killers and rapists etc. wandering around the streets..."Why should you imagine he was talking about the worst offenders rather than the least of them? Doesn't plain good sense dictate that you would consider those convicted of minor offences for early release first?Some camomile tea and wee lie down in a darkened room would do you the world of good. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:27:43 GMT+1 John Stoddart http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=92#comment403 Part of society becoming more risk averse is down to the media and how it exaggerates and sensationalises stories. If we were given more responsible reporting then we would find it easier to make better judgements about the risk associated with any decision. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:25:37 GMT+1 Electric Hermit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=92#comment402 398. glamorgan9560"All crime is on the way down anyway so said our unelected PM the other day!"There is a general downward trend in crime rates. Which is probably what the PM actually said.And all Prime Ministers of the UK are unelected. So what's the point in mentioning it? Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:24:06 GMT+1 Andy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=92#comment401 Phosgene wrote: You assume, wrongly, that a miscarriage of justice could never happen to you. Liberty has and continues to protect an oblivious person blogging here called Andy against his own government.Liberty does not protect my rights here, the government protects my freedom of speech and we live in a free society. If Liberty really cared about Human rights I would suggest they move to North Korea or Iran and do something about the terrible human rights in those countries first. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:08:25 GMT+1 Andy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=91#comment400 Phosgene wrote:Andy wrote:"Jonathan wrote: It seems that this government is more bothered about the rights of the criminal than the victim. If an illegal immigrant is jailed for murder and says, "I'll be at risk of attack if I'm returned to my homeland," legal advisors say, "This person must stay in the UK, at taxpayers' expense.You should focus your blame against unelected groups like Liberty who do everything in there power to make sure murderers and rapists aren't deported when the government tries to deport them."You should focus your blame against governments of any kind who choose not to follow their own laws.You assume, wrongly, that a miscarriage of justice could never happen to you. Liberty has and continues to protect an oblivious person blogging here called Andy against his own government.------------------------------------------------------------------------For any unelected group to stand up and tell me what my human rights are is a violation of my human rights. Fri 02 Apr 2010 17:03:55 GMT+1 Worldcitizen1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=91#comment399 390. At 3:19pm on 02 Apr 2010, Buck_Turgidson.I wish we had more people like you in this country and maybe our crime rate would go down. Personally, because our penal system is filled with mostly drug offenders (75%). I wish we would adopt a system similar to the one in Holland when it comes to drugs. It seems, by all accounts, to be working. They have 40% of the drug usage rate that we have here in the U.S.A. Hats off to you!!To the others who believe that ex-offenders need to do low paying jobs AFTER they served their time in jail? Do you really think that will be a deterrent to crime if they have no money? I really wish that for those who believe that that you would be without money for a month and have no way of paying for food and then find a piece of bread lying on the road and get arrested for taking it. Perhaps, you will change your tune then. Fri 02 Apr 2010 16:38:10 GMT+1 Enuf_Zed http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=91#comment398 If 'Sir' David latham thinks people are 'too risk averse' because they don't want convicted cold blooded killers and rapists etc. wandering around the streets, then yes I am too risk averse.When will our justice system realise that it is their job to enforce the law and protect law abiding citizens from criminals, and not just as a system to keep them in well paid jobs and allow them to spout stupid comments when they feel like it? Sack this idiot and get someone who will do the job properly. Fri 02 Apr 2010 16:08:11 GMT+1 glamorgan9560 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=91#comment397 Oh why not just let then all go! All crime is on the way down anyway so said our unelected PM the other day! But hang on.. why are all the prisons full? And people won't go out a night? Adverts on TV tell me don't put my keys on tne hall table or show my laptop by the window of my lounge! Why Gordon? Further more don't sell a goldfish to a kid or you get a 1000k fine and taged! This country has lost it big time - keep this scum locked up and take out tvs gaming tables and feed them bread and water, double their strech if they get out of line. EASY Fri 02 Apr 2010 16:05:31 GMT+1 Brendan MacLean http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=91#comment396 It all depends on what sort of prisoners we are talking about. I read recently of a man who stole half a million quid from his employers, paid it back before they knew about it and ended up serving 4 years for his trouble. On the other hand, people who rape babies have recently been given sentences of 7 years. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think raping a baby is less than twice as bad as stealing some money - it's infinitely worse.So perhaps the answer is to work out who really deserves a prison sentence. Those who pose a threat to others should clearly be locked up but those whose crime does not involve hurting anyone should not be in prison, rather they should serve some sort of community sentence, perhaps in an attempt to take some responsibility for their actions and put things right.It would save money and time and we might actually see some good done as a result. Not everybody who commits a crime is a spaced out, zombie psychopath even if the Daily Mail says they are. Most of us at some point have committed a criminal offence, perhaps even unknowingly. That fact in itself does not mean we should be locked up and treated like rats. Fri 02 Apr 2010 15:53:17 GMT+1 deanarabin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=90#comment395 At 1:23pm on 02 Apr 2010, Electric Hermit wrotePrisoners convicted of the most serious offences in England & Wales such as premeditated multiple murders or killings with aggravating factors such as sexual abuse are subject to a whole life order and cannot qualify for early release.Maybe, and I'm not a criminal lawyer, but in my 372 I was referring to ALL killers, not just the very worst of which you give examples. I gave just one example of those who might qualify for some leniency, there may be many more. I don't know what's meant by 'premeditated multiple murders': multiple in the sense of contemporaneous? or multiple meaning serial? If serial, there wouldn't be any such multiple murders because under my system they would be locked up for life and wouldn't get the chance to murder again (prison staff excepted of course and the prison regime must be secure enough to ensure Prison Officers' safety.)I think my sentence which put public safety way above criminal expectations could be expressed as 'Life means for a life' and firmly believe that the high cost of this would be worth it. I used to think compassion was probably the right way, but risk analysis requires good sense, and I just don't trust the unknown and apparently unaccountable people who make these decisions any more Fri 02 Apr 2010 15:46:39 GMT+1 Del_Herts http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=90#comment394 The UK has become too risk-averse in every way, due to Health and Safety Laws, the litigation culture, and the Nu Labour Nanny State. However I agree that the legal system seems to be biased more towards the criminals than their victims. Fri 02 Apr 2010 15:05:17 GMT+1 Cabe UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=90#comment393 Yes I do agree with him. The public are too paranoid and haven't a clue about prison or how the system works as they've chosen the Media as their main crime and prison information provider! And the function of the Media especially newspapers is... ? - to make money-stories by publishing in an inflamatory manner and not necessarily correct and which in turn, rile up public emotions to sell more papers! The truth should be cold hard fact and not about 'emotions' which are just personal feelings, yet serious decisions are influenced by these same 'emotions' and not by what is correct. That is why our world is in such a mess. Prison is not the luxury hotel that newspapers make it to be! There are thousands of prisoners who have worked extremely hard and off-their-own-backs to rehabilitate because they want to. But those working inside prisons are uninterested or UNprepared to *allow* them to rehabilitate. The "professionals" who are paid lots to rehabilitate them in the end either dont trust themselves or wont take responsibility for a job well done incase that 1-in-500 proves wrong and backfires on them. In the end the whole prison system is clogged up because of individuals who are not delivering so - er, what was the original point of employing them then? Prisoners who are ready to be relased end up staying in prison 10/20 YEARS over their release tarrif. There is also another element - prisons make money! Prison staff, prison officers, psych depts, 'security' etc are usually called 'jobsworths' but I call them prison 'job-creation specialists' because its easy work and you have total control over reports, keys, everything and it is easy to control the prison population. Prisons get a budget and on top of that they get £££ for bu ms on seats per course/ therapy programme. Shops and canteens are UNsubsidised so are very profitable. Prisons charge 7-9 times more £££ on prisoner telephone calls than we pay outside which makes it a huge money making machine. Ultimately staff can tie people up in prison forever. Well, the public like being fed a load of horse manure by the media and want to keep prisoners in prison forever so Good! - The public are ultimately having to pay for all this rubbish in their taxes! Its simple, if there is a 'risk-factor' involved don't release them! But if there is none and especially if they have worked hard then why not? - and all those who say 'I don't want criminals living near me' bleat bleat - please get real! We need to generate some wisdom and humanity here to change the world not make it worse! The world is rapidly shrinking and not only that, the whole world is a huge crime scene anyway with very few people who do not commit some sort of daily transgression so, before you show up your intolerance, hatred, or other negative traits please check to make sure you haven't already got some criminals living in your own family? :) Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:48:29 GMT+1 Dave Hamilton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=90#comment392 Would Sir David be so happy for these criminals to be released if they were going to be living next door to him?I don't think so. Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:35:57 GMT+1 FatPeace - A Promise to Heather http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=89#comment391 I'm sorry but forty years of this hoodie hugging poow ickle misunderstood deprived offenders mentality has given us a society where the majority live in fear of youths and daren't walk the streets or use public after dark. It's categorically and catastrophically failed and a different approach was years overdue when most of the Chav parents of today were still themselves in nappies. More prisons, longer sentences, fewer 'second chances'. These yobs would soon get the message if they knew their obnoxious behaviour stood a good chance of landing them in prison - and not a virtual Butlins with Sky TV, pool tables, gyms and a varied menu but somewhere far worse than where they'd come from on the outside - instead of getting them a slap on the wrist and a hundred agencies queuing up to 'assist' them the second they left the courtroom. We're far too risk-averse where things like letting children graze their knees are concerned but no-one should have to 'risk' being beaten up, mugged or worse for leaving their house and as a society we should be taking ever possible step to minimise that risk - unfortunately that's not going to happen where we have naive liberals such as this guy or the children's advisor who the other week suggested RAISING the age of criminal responsibility (this just before details of the horrific, sustained sexual and emotional abuse of six year-olds by their peers at a Welsh school emerged) setting the tone and closing down the debate. Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:24:34 GMT+1 ruffled_feathers http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=89#comment390 '365. At 12:11pm on 02 Apr 2010, Human wrote:In order to stop all crime the majority of the population would be in prison! It's about time society realised that the reason the numbers of prisoners is rising is because we make more and more laws to break. In Saxon times there were no prisons. Crimes were dealt with by way of compensation. If we were a more forgiving and inclusive society, there would be less crime anyway. Yes I know I am mad in most people's eyes but it is what I believe and what most religions also believe. Remember "Turn the other cheek".'So someone knocks you over the head, grabs your wallet, rapes your boy/girlfriend, kills your baby and you turn the other cheek. Sorry. I don't believe you.What are these new laws that are placing so many people in prison, please? I thought murder, manslaughter, rape, arson, burglary (and variations on it) and fraud had long been on the books.I am not aware of having done anything to have put me in prison. I do not think I am on my own there. Perhaps I could be enlightened?'379. At 2:03pm on 02 Apr 2010, kazibeth wrote For all those who say - "try being a victim, and then give us your opinion", I would say "your opinion isn't worth giving until you have the facts, and until then, you don't know what you are talking about"'If you feel happy living in close proximity to criminals who may have been released too early from prison, perhaps they could all come and live in your vicinity?Our previous nextdoor neighbour, an elderly lady, was mugged near home, and wouldn't go out on her own again. Perhaps you should have been around to explain to her that it wasn't that bad. She was not being manipulated by the media as you suggest - she was terrified. Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:20:23 GMT+1 Buck_Turgidson http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=89#comment389 kaybraes wrote:Of course we're averse to criminals not being in prison. These scum should be removed from society and if they fail to mend their ways, it should be on a permanent basis, if necessary using the Chinese cure for persistant criminality.These scum as you like to refer to them include;Veterans in PrisonVeterans in the Criminal Justice System represent approximately 8.5% of the entire prison population and 6% of all those on probation and parole. Research published by the National Association of Probation Officers in September 2009 revealed that misuse of alcohol or drugs was a major issue in over half the cases and nearly half were suffering from diagnosed or undiagnosed post traumatic stress disorder or depression.http://www.veteransinprisonassociation.co.uk/How very caring and compassionate of you to refer to UK veterans suffering from PTSD and other stress related mental illnesses as a result of combat activities as scum.You may want to read this article and see if it changes your rather warped perception of some of the people that end up in prison.Servicemen in PrisonFormer Detective and Royal Marine now turned author Simon Bywater highlights the staggering statistic that more men from the Falklands War have committed suicide than those who were actually killed fighting.http://www.insidetime.org/articleview.asp?a=475&c=servicemen_in_prisonAnd as for your idea that we follow China's example and start executing offenders, well what about people such as;Kevin Lanehttp://www.justiceforkevinlane.com/Geoff Hydehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/03/haulier-sentenced-drugs-raidSusan Mayhttp://www.susanmay.co.uk/Eddie Gilfoylehttp://www.eddiegilfoyle.co.uk/Would you be happy to see people like these who have very serious doubts over their convictions sent to their deaths under your proposed system ?Especially when we've seen the release of people such as;Michael Sheildshttp://www.michaelshields.uwclub.net/The Birmingham Sixhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stmThe Guildford Fourhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_2490000/2490039.stmAnd before you come back with the oh so predictable response about me caring more about offenders than I do about victims please consider the fact that the best way to prevent people from becoming victims of crime is to stop others from committing crime.Labelling people as scum and calling for harsher sentences, even the death penalty, has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent as we can see from the United States where the murder rate is three times higher per capita than it is in the United Kingdom (UK: 0.014 per 1,000 US: 0.043 per 1,000)The rate for rape (per capita) is twice as high there as it is here (UK: 0.142 per 1,000 US: 0.301 per 1,000)Rates of assaults are about the same (UK: 7.46 per 1,000 US: 7.57 per 1,000).Amazingly the United States has more than eleven times more youth murders per capita than the United Kingdom (UK: 0.9 US: 11 per 100,000 population aged 10–29 years).Even China has a murder rate that is higher than ours so what you're proposing is that we adopt an even less effective way of preventing crime in our attempt to bring down crime, unless of course that isn't your intention and what you really want is revenge. Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:19:33 GMT+1 taunton-hobbit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=89#comment388 This post has been Removed Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:16:45 GMT+1 g man http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=88#comment387 to many of these boards/councils/advisory bodies are headed by right-on left wing people who seem to have too little grasp on the subject they are commenting on, hence all the "advisors" on the governments advisory panel are resigning. new appiontees in future should have a prerequisite of some common sense rather than thier socio-political outlook on life. Fri 02 Apr 2010 14:14:59 GMT+1 confusus http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=88#comment386 Earth to planet Latham it is the authorities and lawyers that are making society risk averse! Authorities ban a donkey derby because in 18 years time some one may sue for falling off! Conkers banned in school yards! Yet the Health & Safety Executive sponsored the national competition, because they had not banned it as dangerous! The local authority in order to save OUR money for THEIR wages had! Lawyers and the “no win, no fee” scam brought in by Nu-Lab makes everyone look for someone to blame! Do not blame society for what your masters made it!Oh, and as an aside I do not want a crazed axe murder living next door, but if Mr Latham does “bully for him”! Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:59:44 GMT+1 Wicked Witch of the South West http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=88#comment385 It's not so much the public are risk averse, it's the authorities. The public wouldn't mind early release if we felt prisoners were receiving appropriate supervision, instead of it being left to the police to deal with when something has gone wrong. There are many different services which have responsibility for ensuring a prisoner resettles in to society, I feel some of them are shirking their responsibilities using the excuse they're scared of dealing with a person.I know of a case where an alcoholic paedophile has been released to live on an estate full of kids, in the care of his elderly mother. The police are taking their role in his supervision very seriously & have done everything in their power to ensure the safety of the kids. I am told that social services are also supposed to be involved in his supervision, but as far as I can see they've completely shirked their responsibility. Clearly the man should be in sheltered accommodation, his mother can not cope. He should also have been referred for psychiatric evaluation to establish more than just his competence to face trial, because his problems are far worse than simple alcoholism, but it's easier for the authorities to brush it off as alcoholism. Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:45:54 GMT+1 rigpig http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=88#comment384 'too risk-averse'?How can we be? The law has let a vicious criminal get away with a fine and tagging.................how will we be ever free of risk when such leniency is shown to sellers of goldfish to underage children. Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:39:52 GMT+1 CzarCastic http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=88#comment383 Maybe some crimes should never warrant release Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:34:06 GMT+1 NethLyn http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=87#comment382 Separating out the two issues here; this Labourite appointee with a knighthood might be saying something different had he been burgled at least twice or had other crimes happen against him or his property - unfortunately there seems to be a tendency to put people in these publicly funded jobs who don't care ahout the public (the Children's Commmissioner springs to mind). My second burglar was not caught but they have his fingerprints; this was six years ago now, so even if the crime catches up to him, he won't be punished properly even if he carried on offending after breaking into and damaging my home.Society in general? Yes it's too risk averse but then again you can't even complain about noisy teens at the cinema anymore without the potential for bleach being poured over your head and getting disfigured. That along with the price, keeps the DVD market popular and that's just one example, you could make the same correlation with the pub vs drinking at home and so on. Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:32:38 GMT+1 Electric Hermit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=87#comment381 377. D41th1Very well said! Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:26:52 GMT+1 D41th1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=87#comment380 (Sorry for the above post moderator, I must try to stop clicking post before typing an entry)It is quite extraordinary how some people can accuse people working in the penal system as being ‘out of touch’ with the risks that ‘ordinary’ citizens must live with.How many ‘ordinary’ citizens live with the knowledge that their identity is known to viscous, ruthless, criminal organisations who have a reason to wish them dead? How many ‘in-touch’ citizens carry a small mirror on a telescopic rod around with them so that they can check beneath their cars for bombs? When was the last time such a citizen had to move their children from one school to another because of a threat to their safety?Do the people who make such sweeping statements about ‘out of touch’ judges and civil servants actually believe that there is some sort of high walled secret village guarded day and night by Jason Bourne, where they all live, or that they arrive in London on the same train as Harry Potter?Judges do not have a bullet proof, titanium exoskeleton beneath their robes. They, like everyone else working with criminals, worry about the safety of their wives and children much more than any other member of society because they actually have good reason to. Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:13:08 GMT+1 BJK http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=87#comment379 I'm no expert in official techno-babble but by 'risk averse' does the parole chief mean that people don't like getting robbed, raped and murdered by prisoners out on parole? Seriously, though, the problem with parole and all early release schemes is that they just increase the turn-over of prisoners - the same few going in and out all the time - and make a mockery of justice for the victims of crime. If there was no parole or early release then turnover would drop, the prison population would stabilize at a lower level, there would be more time for rehabilitation, and a lot of serious offences that have taken place would never have occurred because the offender would still have been in prison. How many times do we need to see people convicted of a crime who have a string of previous crimes that all took place during a period of early release/parole? If prisoners served their full sentence, with no prospect of parole or early release, then some might argue it would be difficult to maintain order. Well, so far as I know, there is no evidence that the longer a sentence the more troublesome a prisoner is and, if keeping order is a problem, then it could surely be handled by conrolling access to privileges-such as television, phone calls,visitors and the like. Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:10:24 GMT+1 kazibeth http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=86#comment378 Having worked in the criminal justice system for a long time, including 5 years in a prison, I do at least know what the law is, and how it really works in practice! I know how the Parole Board works, how cautious it is about "early" release, and how many prisoners get "knocked back" every year over many years. I have spent 30 years dealing with criminals on a face to face basis, including over 100 so called "murderers", and many more rapists/paedophiles etc, but even those only represented a tiny percentage of the total. And yes, I have been a victim of crime on several occasions, including several burglaries, car theft, and an attempted acid-throwing, so I think I can speak from a well-informed and balanced viewpoint, unlike the media fed rubbish being regurgitated here by people who have no idea what they are talking about, but are going to spew their uninformed self-righteous opinions any way!For all those who say - "try being a victim, and then give us your opinion", I would say "your opinion isn't worth giving until you have the facts, and until then, you don't know what you are talking about"- the media won't give you the facts - try sitting in court on a day to day basis for a month, you'll learn a lot more there!I am not afraid of released criminals - I probably live close to quite a few of them, who have now "settled down". There are literally millions of ex-cons living totally unnoticed as upright members of society! Some of them are very right-wing, and some are probably regular posters on HYS!For heavens sake, get a grip and stop spouting all this vicious rubbish about things you obviously don't understand. A good start would be to realise that you are being manipulated by the media for their own benefit! Fri 02 Apr 2010 13:03:24 GMT+1 wvpTV http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=86#comment377 Yes society is too risk averse, but can you blame us with so many people being let out who shouldn't and go on to murder etc.This problem was created by government being too lax.The release mechanisim needs to be more diligent and precise, then we might not need to worry. Fri 02 Apr 2010 12:40:51 GMT+1 D41th1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=86#comment376 There are no special maternity wards in which women to give birth to criminals, they have not been grown in test tubes by Monsanto, (...have they?), and neither do criminals arrive here from Mars to commit their crimes.The criminals, or “scum”, “filth”, or “vermin” as they have also been described in this thread are also your parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters or cousins: or are the relatives of your friends, neighbours or colleagues. They are just as human as their victims.If you are happy to share in the benefits of society then like it or not you, me and everyone else must also share responsibility for the social, economic and mental health factors which lead some people to commit crime. This is just as great an imperative as taking care of the victims of crime. Sometimes labels are an excuse used to dehumanise people, instead of ‘criminal’ and ‘victim’ think ‘John’ and ‘Tom’. This is very hard to accept, especially when some crimes are so abhorrent to everything you value: but if you lack the courage to think of criminals as ordinary people with abnormal thoughts, then you relinquish the right to expect your opinions to be considered valid.Taking the responsibility for dealing with crime seriously requires calm, dedicated thought and complex, costly solutions, not the knee-jerk reactionary bellows of “hang-em high!” bullies. Such juvenile, stream of consciousness outpourings, which frequently make reference to a desire to commit violent acts on criminals, bear an alarming similarity to the deeply flawed machismo-stained reasoning I’m more used to encountering from some of the more vicious criminals.The penal system in this country is flawed, it is always has been, always will be, and is so everywhere. Criminals commit crimes after they are released from prison, they always will. The blame for this does not reside in isolated pockets of society such as probation officers or the courts, the blame rests like a blanket of snow on all our heads. None of us escape a measure of responsibility so surely it’s time that society behaved like rational adults rather than ranting teenagers when discussing how to deal with what is unquestionably life and death decisions? Fri 02 Apr 2010 12:39:35 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=86#comment375 What is meant by 'socity' exactly? Bliar follows Bush's phoney ongoing war and thousands die, protect your home and go to jail. Risk of exposure? Change the law. Society? Fri 02 Apr 2010 12:26:52 GMT+1 Electric Hermit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=85#comment374 372. deanarabin"But in general, when dealing with criminals found guilty of killing or grievous wounding, early release (or perhaps any release at all) should be the exception rather than the rule."Prisoners convicted of the most serious offences in England & Wales such as premeditated multiple murders or killings with aggravating factors such as sexual abuse are subject to a whole life order and cannot qualify for early release. Fri 02 Apr 2010 12:23:59 GMT+1 RadioRogerL http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=85#comment373 We've only become risk averse by being led there by a "government", if one can grace them with such a title, who have eliminated risk by the invention of thousands of new "offences", i.e. things they disapprove of, which include selling squirrels door-to-door, building nuclear bombs at home, smoking in places of which they disapprove, chewing a potato crisp whilst driving your car, driving your car anyway, selling or I therefore assume giving, a goldfish to someone under sixteen, and I could rattle on for years and years. The only way to avoid these societal perversions is to stay home, never go out, never do anything, and never speak to anyone, which seems to be their aim. That's my life these days; except if we ever actually get another general election, and I will go out, with a vengeance. Fri 02 Apr 2010 12:09:02 GMT+1 Not a Tory http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=85#comment372 I think society is too risk averse when it comes to child safety and general health and safety issues. Too concerned with minimising risk.But I think the point has been made here, the issue of releasing prisoners is not an example of the problem.What these comments have highlighted is the fact that these people live in a different world. He doesn't have to live anywhere near any criminals, the only contact he's had would be in relation to his work.He doesn't know anything about "risk", his life bears no relation to the average person's situation.This is just a further example of how out of touch politicians and many civil servants are with the reality of normal life and how very patronising their comments can be. The problem is they are the people who make the decisions that effect everyday life! Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:58:11 GMT+1 deanarabin http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=85#comment371 Society too risk averse? Surely it depends on the risk. Making children wear safety goggles for playing conkers is far too risk averse; letting out former indiscriminate killers is very risky. Letting out someone who killed within his or her own circle, perhaps under great provocation, may be a risk worth taking. But in general, when dealing with criminals found guilty of killing or grievous wounding, early release (or perhaps any release at all) should be the exception rather than the rule. The public's safety is infinitely more important than any major criminal's expectations. Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:55:40 GMT+1 Wartonsuperman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=85#comment370 What planet does Sir David live on. Take off his knighthood and stick him in a high rise, see if his opinion changes. Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:49:00 GMT+1 payee http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=84#comment369 I’m not one to rock the boat but crime is with us weather we like it or not. The prisons are becoming to expensive to run as we have to many criminals in our society. The ruling class think they can simply release them back into the society and we can then look after them at no cost to the government. That is as wrong as it can get. Crime is costing us our lives and we can’t do a thing about it. In all honesty we should bring back hanging for the murderers and any other crime that will not be acceptable in our society. May be we shall make the odd mistake and maybe hang the wrong person but it would be a lot better and safer then the constant run of mistakes we are making now. Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:29:32 GMT+1 Mustafa Beer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=84#comment368 Do you blame society?If criminals didn't go to jail you would see vigilantes more and more common...people have to protect themselves and their families after all... Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:26:55 GMT+1 mightymousezero http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=84#comment367 judges are not to blame they show have the right to put the term of sentance to the crime as they see fit, all large case ruling there should be a way for people to vote online for what sence they would give the person and this should be taken into account by the judge or it should be classes as an electric jurry member. i feel like everything as becoming a nanny state and that murderer getaway with it and we have to foot the bill for the change of that persons identity. then you get a person who kills sombody for breaking into his property it is discusting. when people break into your house then they should loose there human rights. the robber can kill you but you dont know who much force to use as they can sue. i think you use as much force as is nessary to make sure that person does not get back up.THERE SHOULD BE NO PAROLE JUST DO THE TIME WITH NO TVS AND DVDS. BRING BACK CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IT WILL BE A USFUL DETTERANT. in america they use prisoners as forms of cheap labour, bring it on. Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:25:11 GMT+1 Human http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=84#comment366 AS a postcript to me previous comment. Incidence of crime is much lower than people think, especially crimes aginst children by strangers. Where have all the children gone? At home in front of their Playstations. No wonder there is an obesity problem. My children, now in their thirties, used to be out building dens in the woods or riding their bikes. Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:14:08 GMT+1 desabled http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=83#comment365 society is too risk averse but not in the criminal justice system.why should the public be put at risk by some risk assessment tick boxwhich may suggest a prisoner is no longer a risk to society we hear of case upon case of newly released prisoners committing capital and serious crime the authorities are clearly failing to release the right people, is it being done to save money at the expense of the publicprobably. where society is too risk averse in terms of how our children are wrapped up in cotton well,being denied the risky experiences which are vital to development,suggesting for example that peadophiles lurk behind every bush on the playing field and that' little jonny might get abducted the reality beingthe vast majority of child abuse occurs within the home, something which the media continues to ignore preferring to attack easier if less prolific targets Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:14:05 GMT+1 Human http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=83#comment364 In order to stop all crime the majority of the population would be in prison! It's about time society realised that the reason the numbers of prisoners is rising is because we make more and more laws to break. In Saxon times there were no prisons. Crimes were dealt with by way of compensation. If we were a more forgiving and inclusive society, there would be less crime anyway. Yes I know I am mad in most people's eyes but it is what I believe and what most religions also believe. Remember "Turn the other cheek". Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:11:20 GMT+1 MAXQUE http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=83#comment363 Lathan says it's only a small minority who are a problem.I ONLY NEED A MINORITY OF ONE TO KILL ME OR ROB ME OR BEAT ME UP.Perhaps if we were to to build a half way house for early release prisoners next door to Lathams home He might change his tune. Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:10:43 GMT+1 Rays a Larf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=83#comment362 Listen up folks.......a American murderer has just been sentenced and the Judge has said No application for payroll will be considered for fifty years......COMMON SENSE PREVAILS Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:01:23 GMT+1 Spiny Norman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=82#comment361 The problem with Sir David and his ilk is that they regularly associate with criminals and that some kind of "Inverted Stockholm Syndrome" is created, whereby the captors identify with the captives.Perhaps he ought to get out more and meet the victims and their families. Maybe he might then start identifying with the victims, not the criminals. Fri 02 Apr 2010 11:00:51 GMT+1 Spiny Norman http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=82#comment360 You're quite right, Sir David. Which would you prefer released and settled in next door to you? A murderer or a child-rapist?Or maybe you live in a big house in the country and you don't care?Try living on one of our sink estates for a year and then come back and pontificate to us. Fri 02 Apr 2010 10:56:20 GMT+1 Upemall http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=82#comment359 I don't see how our society can be risk averse...After all, a quarter of the electorate actually voted in our current, incompetent government - or perhaps that wasn't a risk but a certainty, that New Labour would screw EVERYTHING up, including ensuring that penalties for crimes were riddled with daft inconsistencies. Fri 02 Apr 2010 10:51:54 GMT+1 Electric Hermit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=82#comment358 357. Ashley Hinton"I would also add that prison should be made as a severe deterrent to crime by making it a place where people do not want to go back to."Prison is already a place where normal people do not want to go. If someone prefers life in prison then their life outside has to be far worse than any decent civilised society should tolerate. Fri 02 Apr 2010 10:42:52 GMT+1 Cyclops1000 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=82#comment357 As I was about to say.'Revenge' is the order of the day ,relating to Parole.Not risk.!My neighbour.A God fearing elderely 'Lady';commenting on the recent Bolger genre...... "I went to Chapel and prayed that glass be put into the evil Childs soap,so that,***********"Hold on Eve" I said."I thought you said yesterday,you didn't believe in God!"......." I don't now" she said. ....."I see!" said I.Cyclopsr Fri 02 Apr 2010 10:42:07 GMT+1 Ashley Hinton http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=81#comment356 I don't understand what seems to wrong with locking up criminals, so they can't commit crimes. If prison isn't working, its because the punishment isn't severe enough to be a deterrent. How dare Sir David Latham suggest that we as members of the public are somehow wrong in not wanting criminals on our streets. Again another "sir" looking down from his ivory tower telling us ordinary people how we are so wrong. His comments disgust me. Fri 02 Apr 2010 10:29:19 GMT+1 Christopher Barrett http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=81#comment355 What planet is Sir David Latham living on? Does this man have any idea what damage serious criminals do to others? Quite honestly, the sooner life imprisonment means life imprisonment for the most serious criminals then the better off the UK will be as the rest of the population will be safer.I would also add that prison should be made as a severe deterrent to crime by making it a place where people do not want to go back to.There is too much of an attitude of treating the criminal as some kind of victim and too many excuses are made for criminal behavior. Ever since humans have existed there have been, and always will be, bad people and good people. Fri 02 Apr 2010 09:45:12 GMT+1 Moorlandhunter http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=81#comment354 If an offender is given 15 years in jail, then I would hope he/she spend all of that time in jail. This is the way to stop reoffending.If a murderer on his/her first offence is jailed for life and serves all of the time, then it does not take a mathematician to realise that they will not be a problem to outside society, unlike the present system when murderers are released in as little as 7 years for murder.I am risk ad versed to killer, burglars, and criminals. Keep them in jail for the maximum time of the offence and keep us safe.Such punishment would make a young yob think twice before committing a crime, imagine being 19 years of age, committing an offence and knowing you will get out when you are 40 years of age. Fri 02 Apr 2010 09:11:25 GMT+1 Cyclops1000 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=81#comment353 I don't think it's 'risk' that the general public is adverse to!(Think,the debt ridden society weve decended to....if that isn't risk.What is?).....No, In the case of parole.It is 'revenge' that an uncivilised People require,with 'no mercy'! If this opinion passes 'muster'! I will go on to tell you of what a 'God fearing Neighbour had to say, about the Bulger case. Confident, that it would not 'pass' muster!Cyclops Fri 02 Apr 2010 09:09:20 GMT+1 JPM44 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=80#comment352 As usual, there is no mention of the victims of crime. I work in the criminal justice system and sadly it is a fact that the majority of those convicted of imprisonable offences are repeat offenders. The parole system should be transparent and victims (or their families / representative) should have a say in the release of any offender convicted of a serious assault, sexual offence or murder who has a previous conviction of similar type offence. Risk can be measured by the type of offence and the number of previous convictions. Priority must be given to victims and to protect others from becoming victims. Fri 02 Apr 2010 09:07:19 GMT+1 taunton-hobbit http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=80#comment351 The vast amount of quite frightening twaddle being casually thrown around in this debate is the very reason that society employs a judiciary, to make unemotional and unbiased sentencing decisions - if you don't like it, why not go & live in China or Saudi Arabia and try the alternatives for yourselves - bet you'd be running back here within weeks! Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:48:21 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=80#comment350 And on the subject, I see that post. 349 uses the word "scum". I had a post removed for that - or is it because I used it about politicians? Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:47:02 GMT+1 chrislabiff http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=80#comment349 Er... no. I am sure that governments would like us to be but but most folk are actually NOT sheeple. Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:45:13 GMT+1 kaybraes http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=80#comment348 Of course we're averse to criminals not being in prison. These scum should be removed from society and if they fail to mend their ways, it should be on a permanent basis, if necessary using the Chinese cure for persistant criminality. Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:30:42 GMT+1 Wiggles Bottomley http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=79#comment347 This post has been Removed Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:30:16 GMT+1 mike126 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=79#comment346 We already have a legal system that protects the criminals to such an extent that we have people who have killed walking our streets after a very short period behind bars and some of these people go on to kill again. Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:23:40 GMT+1 Andrew http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=79#comment345 Even if there was no parole and they all did every last day, some would still re-offend. You cannot eliminate that risk. Wake up and smell the coffee.However: parole proceedings are too secretive. Far more information could and should be released in anonymised form - about all except the sort of high-profile case where it would be easy to "join the dots". Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:05:15 GMT+1 Ron http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=79#comment344 It is not us the society that is too weak on such matters But the Social workers and Parole Officers It is they who should stand by their decisions and make what they think right. Don't blame the rest of us for their inadequacies! Fri 02 Apr 2010 08:00:15 GMT+1 Absolutely Livid Yet Again http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=78#comment343 Who can blame society for being too adverse to the prematuture realeaseof dangerous prisoners into society.Look at the implications on society, the law abiding majority, the taxpayer and of course those who have suffered from this now deemed by so called experts to be no longer dangerous and a threat to society.OK, commit a less violent crime but undertake two further crimes following realease it should be a termination of existence with no appeal. A policy of absolute zero tolerance.Time for dangerous prisoners to be treated like you would a dangerous dog and not before time if you ask me. Ideally there should be no dangerous prisoners in prison let alone mixing with and intergreting with society at large. Fri 02 Apr 2010 07:57:11 GMT+1 Roy http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=78#comment342 268. At 6:08pm on 01 Apr 2010, Peter Hoath wrote:To get prisoners to study another term at the ‘University of crime’ does nobody any favours. It’s time to move away from vindictive punishment and refocus on positive rehabilitation of criminals. You are living in cloud cuckoo land Fri 02 Apr 2010 07:33:18 GMT+1 1L19 http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=78#comment341 There is very little rehabilitation going on in prisons. If prisoners are not being reformed then the public ought to be concerned, and prisoner sentences should be fully served. Why is there this idea that they should be released early anyway, where is the acknowledgement of the victims rights. Its makes a mockery of the whole thing, judgement is passed, then a prisoner goes in front of a board, no public present, and given early release! I accept that people can change, but evidence is stronger to suggest that recidivism is the norm. Being soft on criminals is creating a culture of soft on crime, making a prison sentence high kudos! If a person commits a crime and there is no opportunity to reform, tough, the general public has to endure tough times! A prisoner should serve the full sentence administered. Fri 02 Apr 2010 07:30:19 GMT+1 RWRNAE http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=78#comment340 This post has been Removed Fri 02 Apr 2010 07:23:32 GMT+1 Rays a Larf http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=77#comment339 Weak Goverment lawsWeak JudgesWeak MagistratesMamby bamby uneducated officialsPolitically correct decisionsDo gooders and payrole boardsNot enough prisonsIf one is sentenced for a given time then they should serve that sentenceI dont care how good the person has been, there is no reasonable excuse around to let them out. Not even human rights they broke that when they committed a crime against law abiding people and societyIf they have been that good (or clever) than give them another 1p per day for good behavior or even a day off from breaking rocks.Oh sorry they dont do that now, then bring it back and get rid of televisions, mobiles, slop buckets then maybe you can let them out.Isnt there a island in the middle of nowhere we havant found yet Fri 02 Apr 2010 07:18:17 GMT+1 Qui-tacet-consentire http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=77#comment338 People are in prison because they have commited crimes against the laws that govern the soicety we live in. There has to be a deterent that makes them think [more than] twice before they consider doing it again.So yes I'm risk averse because the system is already too soft on criminals. Life should mean life, not ten years - what a joke.Don't get me started about venables and others like him. If someone commits a crime so abhorent to society as to require a new identity [paid for by my taxes] then do they really deserve to remain as a member of society or should we simply remove them in the most cost effective way available. Fri 02 Apr 2010 07:17:23 GMT+1 Boozer http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=77#comment337 On release, maybe the criminals could be given temporary accommodation near David Latham's house. Fri 02 Apr 2010 07:03:09 GMT+1 Moby http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=77#comment336 Zero is the acceptable risk. No child, mother, father, brother or sister should have to die because we are too weak to keep violent criminals in jail where they belong. Fri 02 Apr 2010 04:49:44 GMT+1 br http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/haveyoursay/2010/04/is_society_too_riskaverse.html?page=77#comment335 No I don't agree.. it's because the judiiary and legislature are out of touch with the public's feelings ... they want such criminals locked away Fri 02 Apr 2010 03:42:24 GMT+1