JIM Butchart suggests in Wednesday’s National “if anyone is convicted of five or more serious crimes, why not withdraw their benefits?” as a means of reducing our current crime rate since “that would persuade some to respect society’s guidelines”.
I disagree with his suggestion. First, there are uncertainties in its scope which would make its application difficult. What is meant by “serious crimes”? How long would the benefit sanction apply: forever, or only for a specific period depending on how “serious” the crimes were?
READ MORE: Sue Gray's new job in doubt as she pulls out of major meeting
There is no mention made of those repeat offenders who will not claim benefits. Are they not to have any additional sanction imposed on them? Those are relatively minor issues, and no doubt those drafting the relevant legislation would clarify when and how such a sanction regime would apply.
A more important point is that the suggestion will not reduce recidivism. The current penal system does not work, as demonstrated by the high recidivism rates of former prisoners once released back to society. Given that we are discussing those who have offended several times, we can safely conclude that they are well aware of the likely consequences of their wrongdoing. Despite this knowledge, there is no drop in crime. It seems highly unlikely therefore that imposing benefit sanctions would have any useful effect in reducing recidivism. Why would it? The person committing the offence already knows they could be imprisoned. Why would loss of benefits be more effective?
In any event, we are talking only about a small subset of offenders. Most benefits are already stopped when someone is imprisoned, so the suggestion must refer either to those who are not imprisoned (but who have committed “five or more serious crimes”) or who are to be released from prison (after serving a sentence for their “serious crimes”) and about to claim benefits. Regardless, the point remains that they will need support. Who will do that? Their families? Charities?
READ MORE: 'Disappointed': Nicola Sturgeon joins criticism of nations and regions meeting
Why should they be expected to meet this cost? What if the person has no family or cannot gain help from charity?
Where Jim Butchart and I agree is in the need to reduce our current crime rate, and that this is not a “left/right” political issue. In my view it is about working out what works both for society generally and specifically for prisoners and former prisoners. Where Jim Butchart and I disagree is in the use of punishment to deter further crimes being committed.
Penalising offenders, even if only repeat offenders of “serious crimes”, is not the answer.
Removing benefits from a person means they will inevitably be more likely to re-offend. Expecting them to fall back on family or charity is demeaning to them and onerous for those helping. The aim is not to punish repeat offenders by making them destitute, but to build their sense of self-worth and allow them to reintegrate fully back into society, participating fully in society; and that includes the right to claim benefits.
David Logan
Milngavie
IT is not surprising that Ni Holmes (Letters, Oct 8) resorts to fiction to address the points I raised in my letter (Why isn’t there zero tolerance of violence in our schools?, Oct 7). I prefer to look at facts rather than fiction. My lived experience of schools and discipline covers the 1950s as a pupil in a tough junior secondary school in Aberdeen and as a teacher through the 70s, 80s and 90s in Fife. I have watched the transition from respect and compliance to contempt and aggression. The change took place with the abolition of corporal punishment. The effect is recorded in my previous letter.
READ MORE: John Swinney slams Keir Starmer's first 100 days in office at FMQ's
The situation is now so serious that it is affecting the whole of society and people’s attitudes to one another. It is affecting the mental wellbeing of our young people and their ability to function in society. I am not a cruel person, and I love my children and grandchildren. I am aware of the goodness that is there, I just want it to be given the opportunity to flourish.
Story books will not address the problems our society is facing. We must stand back, look at the whole situation – school violence, domestic violence, knife crime, and every other manifestation of our society failing its young people. Then, identify the problems and address them. Sacred cows must be put aside and intelligent, reasoned solutions found.
Angus H Shaw
via email
BULLYING allegations against The Right Rev Anne Dyer, the bishop of Aberdeen and Orkney, have been dropped as it was claimed a disciplinary tribunal would not be “in the public interest”. Public interest here was characterised by the Scottish Episcopal Church as “considering the wider Church community and general confidence in the Church.”
Whatever the truth of this case, it is unnerving to hear of this conflation.
Once again a minority religious group is being allowed to mark its own homework.
Neil Barber
Edinburgh Secular Society
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here