OTB,

I was speaking in generalities and I merely gave
guns as only one example. Deviance arises from
the very nature of society and the necessity for
establishing and maintaining social order.

Without rules there can be no rule-breakers, but
where there are rules, there will always be people
who are tempted - or pressured - to break them.

Some societies have more deviance than others.

The United States, a nation embarked on the historical
experiment of giving its citizens an unprecedented degree
of freedom, is confronted with the fact that some people
abuse that freedom. I gave guns merely as an example.
Most countries severely restrict private handgun
ownership, but there are at least 60 million handguns in
the United States - and weapons of this type are used in
44 per cent of the 19,000 or so murders that occur each
year. The American handgun homicide rate is 77 times the
average rate for England, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland,
Australia, Israel, and Canada combined. By the way,
bringing up certain issues in a discussion does not
mean that one is pro or anti what is being raised. It merely
means that issues are being raised to be discussed. It does
not necessarily mean that the poster personally believes in what is
being presented. In other words its a discussion and in a
discussion we should look at issues from all sorts of angles
not just as an either/or issue. That way we can all learn
something from the discussion.

Dear Individual,

I'm not sure that I buy into your sweeping generalisations
that things are so great in prison and that some people
actually look forward to going there. Perhaps they do.
Overall though, I think the evidence points the other way.

Who would want to be cut off from the rest of society, and
surrender the personal control of one's life,
submitting instead to the almost absolute rule
of a hierarchy of officials. This in the long run can
leave people incapable of assuming normal social
responsibilities. It's not something that any sane person would
want.

Who would want to be cut off from the rest of society, and
surrender the personal control of one's life,
Lexi,
1, when it's a part of a new youth culture as an initiation
2, when you can can look forward to getting out in a few years & all your proceeds from your criminal activities are still at your disposal.
3, when you have gangs lining you up to put you away for good then Prison is ok.
4, there are many who simply couldn't survive on the outside so they prefer stints in prison.
If prisons were somewhat less comfortable then yes they would be a deterrent but as things stand they're not effective in the long run. As long as a prison provides better service to criminals than to decent people then it will not be as much of a deterrent as it should be. We had an attempted rape & the offender was not locked away so within two weeks he attacked another girl & now he is in prison until Terry O'Gorman's outfit sets him lose again. Tell that second victim that prison is a deterrent.

Lexi, "I was speaking in generalities and I merely gave
guns as only one example"

It is when you repeat wrong information like that despite being corrected previously, that you come across as a flakey Green supporter, out to air Greens' spin. When you leave that stuff alone you contribute very worthwhile introspection to threads. I would much prefer to read more of Lexi's thinking from her experience of life than highly questionable Greens Left spin from 'independent' sites.

While I believe we should be treating prisoners humanely. We have an interest in doing so. It is the only hope of a few being diverted somewhat from their chosen careers. Greens would probably believe that criminals all ahev excuses for their behaviour. That it is all society's fault. However, people are right to ask why the law-abiding poorly off and disadvantaged citizens are not treated similarly (to prisoners).

It is a cold comfort to recall that 'Virtue is its own reward' when Mum is on a long waiting list for hospital treatment but the very worst criminals in the land are given priority beds and courageous, hugely expensive medical intervention to save them from the consequences of their chosen lifestyles. A chain smoking criminal thug gets preference and first class care for a heart and lung transplant while someone's dear mum dies in an ambulance ramped outside Emergency. People ask, "How does that work?".

People ask why prisoners are advantaged and shouldn't they take their turn as must law-abiding citizens who have always worked to be independent. The same questions are asked by the poor employed, who work for less benefits and poorer quality of life than prisoners. They are also prisoners in that their low income severely restricts their choices.

to be continued..

contd..

Your US example is highly flawed and for many reasons. But as usual because you are starting with a Left prejudice and the researcher's fallacy. You find 'proof' for what you already believe to be true.

You want to make firearms, the simple tool, the cause of violence. The simple tool has malicious intent and makes them do it. Greens like the awful Lee Rhainnon and the foolish Shoebridge have ridden that wagon to death in lieu of coming up with policies of practical benefit to their electorates.

In doing so (your US example) you ignore the very obvious, incontrovertible evidence that violence in the US (and shootings if that is the only violence recognised by OLO's hoplophobes), is almost always by young black offenders from poorer areas. It is also almost invariably black on black. If you must draw comparisons with (say) China or Japan, you could just as easily hypothesise that diversity or lack of employment are the conditions for higher violence statistics.

I do not for a moment agree with the proposition that some societies have more crime because of 'freedom'.

Now that is all very basic information that has been put to you and others in previous threads. It has been argued out every time to where you have slammed the door and departed, declaring that the thread was claosed or you had said what you wanted to say.

Maybe the reason why thread discussions do not provide much learning as you say has to do with that saying attributed to the Chinese, which is, "When the student is ready, the teacher appears".

Green spin doth not an argument make.

OTB,

I shall try again.
I did not glean any information on this particular
subject from any "Green" sites. Nor have I ever voted
"Green." Nor am I interested in anything that they
happen to have to say - on any subject.

Your anti-Green stance is irrelevant and should have nothing
to do with this discussion. What is being discussed is
deviance and how society deals with it. Namely punishment,
and so on.

Since some societies seem to have more deviance than others,
I brought up the United States as an example - where its
citizens are given an unprecedented degree of freedom,
and where some people abuse that freedom. For example,
I stated, if people are free to own guns, some will use
them to rob and kill each other (I did say some people,
not all people),
if people have freedom of religion, some will join obscure
cults and sects; if people have freedom of expression, some will
produce hard-core pornography; if people have freedom to
travel, some will smuggle drugs. Conversely, a society that
places greater emphasis on conformity to the rules - like
China, for example - that society tends to have less deviance,
though at the cost of personal freedom.

After all, freedom implies choice; the exercise of choice
leads to differences; and one group's differences soon
become another group's deviance. In this sense, deviance may be a
part of the price that a free society pays for the liberty its
members enjoy.

I trust that this clarifies the points that were being made.
It is simply viewing things from a sociological perspective.
It has nothing to do with
any political party, and certainly not the "Greens."

If you want to be taken seriously in discussions - kindly
do not attribute things to people or misrepresent their views. Because subsequently you shall be ignored.
And frankly your attitude is starting to wear a bit thin.

Individual,

This has been an interesting discussion.
I've got a few more thoughts to throw into
the mix for you.

Selective perception and labeling - that is,
finding, processing and punishing some kinds
of criminality and not others - means that
visible, poor, nonmobile, outspoken,
undiplomatic "tough" kids will be noticed,
whether their actions are seriously delinquent
or not.

Other kids who have established a reputation for
being bright (even though under-achieving),
disciplined and involved in respectable activities,
who are mobile and monied, will be invisible when
they deviate from sanctioned activities.

They'll sow their wild oats - perhaps even wider and
thicker than their lower-class cohorts - but they
won't be noticed. When it's time to leave adolescence
most will follow the expected path, settling into the
ways of the middle-class, remembering fondly the
delinquent but unnoticed fling of their youth.

The "tough" kids and others like them may turn around, too.
It is more likely that their noticeable deviance will have
been so re-inforced by police and the community that their
lives will be effectively channelled into careers consistent
with their adolescent background.