Why it is wrong to use Homelessness as a Punishment

Whilst the desire to do something about rioters now the smoke is clearing is understandable, I fear that the Government, led by the PM, are letting their enthusiasm for draconian punishment get the better of them. I have no problem with individual responsibility but there is usually a well established way in which the law can bring that about for the individual concerned. Neither do I have any trouble with parents taking responsibility for the acts of their children, but there are positive ways and negative ways in which this can be brought about.

My particular concern is with parents being evicted as part of this process of attributing responsibility when their child has been charged or convicted with a public order offence. Leaving aside the presumption of innocence, as some have already done, this is wrong. This is because it is a vicarious punishment imposed by way of strict liability.

Since we are told that the Government believes in the family, although not yet enough to give them some tax breaks, I find it difficult to see how making a mother and her child homeless achieves any relevant purpose. If a tenant had been a nuisance to neighbours and has a record of anti-social behaviour, then having a recently convicted 'rioter' in the house could well be the last straw for the landlord and the other neighbours, in which case one might ask why an eviction has not already been sought. If however this is the only cause then to make the family homeless is disproportionate and damaging to any family unit, or what is left of it.

Some of the parents seen on television swearing at reporters as they leave court with their children do not evoke much sympathy, and may well deserve eviction for other reasons. However, when asked where they expect such people to go after they have been evicted the PM simply says the private sector and they should have thought about that, before the child went off to a riot. I suppose this is at least better than ignoring the question as has been the result of my as yet unanswered enquuries of the Housing Minister @grantshapps.

To be vague or silent about these consequences is not only to reveal an ignorance of how traumatic homelessness can be, it is also tantamount to writing people off in the heat of the moment. If a dysfunctional family is at least in their home, there is a possibility, albeit slim in some cases, that there is something to build on. There is at least a chance that worthwhile lives can be built.

If the Government is saying that is nothing to do with them, then they might as well write off an awful lot of dysfunctional people, wash their hands of them, and hope they go away. They may do so for a while, they may be out of sight, but in such instances, unless someone can help achieve a breakthrough in providing hope for such ‘punished’ human beings, yet another seed is sown for a whirlwind which will inevitably return. This harsh, disproportionate and indiscriminate punishment not only shows a degree of callousness, it is also marks the absence of governmental compassion from people who probably never have been, and never will be, homeless. It lowers Government to the level of the thoughtless and unfeeling looters who cared nothing for their fellow citizens’ property or lives.

Dacier

Understand Looting? No thanks: it’s much easier to Condemn

Trying to explain the new phenomenon of ‘consumer looting’, is often seen by some, as condoning it. This is clearly nonsense and often comes from people who are strong on condemnation generally and short of the talents required to explain. Sadly, Prime Minister Cameron and Home Secretary May, reveal this failing when they say that the disorder on the shopping streets is, ‘crime, pure and simple’. If only it were. Anyone who has eavesdropped on conversations between young street people or taken vox pop interviews of unemployed youngsters seriously, will soon realise that many of them are suffering from a serious disconnection from what no doubt Cameron and May would describe as ‘the standards of normal society’. Having seen quite a few employed ‘adults’, of whom it is tempting to say should have known better, leaving court, I think the problem goes back across several governments.

Unfortunately in the world of disaffected youth and their parents, or parent, the standards of comfortable Britain are difficult to find. Serial bad parenting over two or more generations can produce a very different person to that which members of ‘normal society’ would like to have living next door. How many people in ‘comfortable Britain’ have heard of the need to teach some failing parents basic parenting skills like how to wash themselves or prepare food. This might explain why such places on such courses, if they still exist, are very hard to find by hard pressed social workers trying to help the disfunctional families among their impossible case load.

The range of factors causing the cultural disconnection is wide and runs from the inability to read, through to an inability to escape the hold of the local gang, drug addiction, let alone an inability to find or keep a job. And all this takes place in a context of materialism and its attendant advertising based on the notion that to be worth anything you must have the product being advertised. No wonder levels of self esteem and hope plummet. Such an individual has no future and nothing to lose.

Excluded people looking in on ‘normal society’ from the outside, sooner or later, will be tempted to break in, or break it up, in some way, you break themselves up. Some get a lucky break but they are hard to come by. Aspirational looting, as I have heard it described today, is now one way of achieving both the break in and having a ‘smashing time’, all at the same time in the company of similarly disconnected youngsters possibly in your gang. These youngsters get some feeling of worth according to their own distorted view of where they are.

To those in normal society they are ‘feckless’, ‘anti-social’, ‘a-social’, ‘a-moral’ and many other things. Judging by the values of the Cameron Government they do not appear to be a sub-class worth investing in. Condemning their social origins as sick Dr Cameron is easy. Do you have a modern Dr Finlay to find a cure? Like so many of the cuts I fear there will be rather a lot of false economies in the pipeline. John Major said we should ‘... condemn more and understand less’. His wish seems to be coming true. Unfortunately, failing to understand something through fecklessness or ignorance, or both, usually has a big price.

Dacier