The Journal: Today's Voice of the North
Feb 15 2005 By The Journal
Asbos alone not an answer
Four letters alone now seem to sum up the Government's entire crime policy: ASBO. A set of powers laudable in terms of the initial ambitions imagined for them have now been extended further than any could have imagined.
We applaud the use of anti-social behaviour orders on housing estates, where residents are effectively besieged in their homes by petty but persistent criminals.
It is a logical and sensible extension of this that it should be used by those policing the Metro to keep violent predators from the system.
But jet skiers infringing the bye-laws of our coastline? What, exactly, does this achieve?.
Our fear is that asbos become a blunt instrument, the implication of criminality they carry creating a thousand confrontations: an us and them mentality that spreads right across society.
Asbos are attractive to the criminal justice system because they waive the threat of prison before offenders who, while not committing a single offence of great seriousness have, through the amount of crimes they are responsible for, caused misery to a great many.
Studies have already shown asbos have led to offenders who would previously have escaped jail being locked up - not for their initial offence but for breach of the asbo imposed alongside a non-custodial sentence. In many cases this is probably all well and good.
But does the craze to slap down these orders mean we are now racing to punishment earlier rather than attempting to reform lesser offenders at a young age, early in their criminal careers?
A report today suggests much of the Government's criminal justice policy is withering on the vine, while the launch of yet another initiative to tackle anti-social families seems to expose the fact that asbos alone are not the answer.
It is time for a rethink, rather than a rush to slap orders down and hope someone else tackles the underlying problem, further down the line.
Click here to find out more on this story.
Standing up for motherhood
Parents - mothers in particular - are not so much being told they can have both children and a job if they want to; they are being cajoled, bribed and pressured to the point where they feel like failures if they do not.
The Government promises schools open 10 hours a day to cater for double-income families, the opposition promises tax breaks for childcare, whole packages of financial credits are targeted at the working mum.
Rachel O'Brien, who writes so compellingly in The Journal today, is a housewife, and proud of it. How sad that she feels like a voice in the wilderness, almost ashamed to admit this.
Politicians and employment experts speak of the 'work-life balance' as a virtuous ambition, when the very term itself excludes one choice, that of tipping the scale entirely towards quality time with our children.
So whatever happened to parenthood? What is wrong with a mother - or father for that matter - wanting to spend as much time as possible with her children?
Exactly who are parents sinning against if they choose to manage on one income rather than exhaust themselves earning?
That may satisfy a Government obsessed with the raw numbers of economic growth. But is it the best for the growth of our children?
Share
