here in the uk, 80% or so of crime is done by 16 - 25 year olds, and i`m guessing the us and other countries is around the same.
what i propose, is that every 15 year old person is given a contract by the country,which puts (lets say) £10,000 in a bank account, which they cannot access until age 25.
at the same time, they are told that should they break the law, the court has the power to use their bank balance to compensate any victim of their crimes, or pay for damages etc, in addition to any action currently available to judges.
this means that as well as having something to lose, they also have something to look forward to, and so, hopefully, they will alter their behavior.
of course,most young people are not criminals, and for them, this will be a gesture of society showing how we value them as the future of our country, and so it is an investment, but for those who are not able to see it in this way, it is almost like a bribe, but it doesnt matter, so long as the crime is reduced. i know that some,(even many) will not desist from bad behavior, but they will not "collect" anyway, but when the cost of court time/lawyers/social workers/police/insurance/damage etc are taken into account, if even 40% of crime ceased, then i think that this measure would be self financing. i have not crunched any numbers,and i know there may be objections to this thing politically, but weve wasted plenty of money trying (unsuccessfully) to reduce crime, has the time come to try something different, maybe something like this?
I am actually all for spending some money to keep young people from committing crime. We spend a lot on jail and rehabilitation–I’d be happier seeing it going to the front end, rather than being applied after the kid goes astray.
However, in contrast to your method, I’d rather see money be made available to teens and their advocates in the form of grants and other pooled resources. Stuff they can use today, not after some period when they’ve made it safely through their riskiest years. The money would go for interesting projects that give them direction, keep them busy, keep them out of trouble, and contribute to the community.
In our town we have a teen center with a recording studio. Kids are producing their own record label. Is it expensive? Well, sort of, but a good number of kids are getting a lot out of it. That’s the kind of thing I can get behind. And, much-maligned as it is in this country, “midnight basketball” is A-Ok in my book.
hi cranky! what you say is ok by me, i just think we could do BOTH things. of course resourses have to be there as part of the infrastructure, but the way i see it, when you are 25, maybe you just finished your time becoming a tradesman or whatever, and you could use the money to start up your own business,
or maybe you went to university/college, and you have fees to pay, or you just got married, and need a start to get a home together, or whatever,
im not saying we should "starve" the kids now, for a reward later. all im saying, is that by providing this “investment”,— albeit in a conditional way, we can encourage some of them to “police” themselves, in away they might otherwise not, during their “riskiest years”, and show that we really value them, and give them something positive to look forward to, and not just see them as a problem.
if the net result is a crime reduction in this age group of say 40%, i reckon that it can be self financing, as well as drastically improving the quality of life for the society as a whole, which in turn could free up more resourses to use as you describe.
thanks for your input
Well, give me, (disaffected, unemployed, impecunious), £10,000, and I shall promise not to commit crime too. Oh, that’s right, I don’t commit crime anyway. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
OK, I can see there being something in the concept, but I have to wonder whther the younger of that age group in particular will manage to focus on a lot of money later, as opposed to criminal behaviour now. I mean, might not many of them believe that they can commit the crimes without being caught. And who, at 15 or so, views the idea of age 25 with much reality, or indeed much at all?
Celyn has no kids, teenage or othwrwise, so is merely pondering out loud here, but, well…
The ones who are going to lead “constructive” “socially acceptable”, whattever (sorry- again I am typing when the hour is a bit late) lives anyway, will do so anyway, and perhaps that £10k grant would be nice for them.
The others, hmmmmm… I suspect something to occupy them now would , if nothing else, limit the amount of free time available for bad activities. Yet think these days there are rather a lot of short course at small local colleges, inteneded either as a gateway to further studies, or as qualification for employment. Perhaps a (much smaller) financial incentive to complete some of these might be useful.
After all, many of us on this board will have found that getting a job is one thing, then you suddenly need money for rent, transport, the right clothing, immediately, while having no hope of receiving any money for a month.
(Hoping that makes some sense, from the 1 o’clock in the morning Celyn)
hi celyn,
not sure if i`m making it clear enough – EVERY 15 year old would get the cash in the bank, even the good guys!
if some of them dont want to “wise up”, or take their chances on the crime front, and they get caught – the judge has the power to deduct some or all of their £10,000. – thats the stick.
if they keep out of trouble,they keep the cash – thats the carrot.
its pretty simple really, i think most 16year olds can grasp the concept. i can understand that some people might object to the idea, especially if they were missing out on the chance to be in on it, but we have to start somewhere, and in 15years, everybody will be included.
my question to you is not really “do you like the idea?”
it`s more “do you think it would reduce crime in the 15 – 25 age group?” — at least by enough to be cost effective, and make a noticable difference to the places we live in
If the teenage yobbo gets totally out of his/her/its skull on “pick drug of choice, including alcohol”, will he/she/it be governed at that point by this hypothetical money in several years’ tme?
Purely incidentally, why 15 as a start point? I only ask 'cos ,well, it is not a legal cut-off point for anything. They should still be at school at that age. Plus, well, there are frequent newspaper pancs re. crime by rather younger kids. Yeah, I *know" one should try to ignore media panics, but I’m an old fogey-in-training here.
I can see that you are trying to look at not “how will it run with the voters?” but" “might it in fact damn well *work”?", but am not sure how that could be established. It would be interesting to know if anything simliar has been tired in any other countries. Funny, how, for some, reason, I immediately start wondering about the Scandinavian ones.
Failing, that, the creosote kid, there could be a nice job for you as a government social policy consultant here
Now, if you were “tar” instead of “creosote”, you could be the Social Policy for the Deterrence of Young Ne’er Do Wells (Potential)TsAR
Note for overseas readers - in recent years, the govenment has been fond of the appallation “Tsar” for a boss of, well, any new plan. It is not for me to reason why, but I just thought the odd terminology might need an explanation.
hi again celyn,
spookily enough, when i first thought this one up, i thought scandinavian as well! i know that the “neds” might not take the bait, but then again, we can at least take the money back off them, which we cant do right now. (heh, heh, heh)
the 15 age thing is just because thats the age where the crime is, (15 – 25), but i`m open to moving it around if you like.
just imagine they stole your stuff, or vandalised your property or whatever. along comes plod, “sorry, but they`re too young to do anything real about it” – not any more, “you just lost £3000 for being a ned sunshine!” – the more i think about it, the more i like it!
i think id like to be a tar tsar --- if i wasnt so addicted to sniffin the old “creosote”…ahh, the fumes…
So basically, reward them so that they’ll behave? Um, isn’t that called a “bribe”? And if it doesn’t work for mom (using a candy bar as the “reward”), in the supermarket for a 3 year old, why would we think it would work for a young person?
And why should someone be paid to try to ensure that they’ll “stay clean” when millions of people manage to do just that without a reward?
I don’t know that I’d call it a stupid idea, but I find the idea VERY like “paying them to be good,” and that just really sticks in my craw.
They “should” be good because that’s the right thing to do, not to mention the best thing to do regarding their lives and futures, NOT because of some payoff.
As to “making them pay” out of their accounts, I fail to see how that would really have any benefits as far as decreasing the crime rates for that age group, they didn’t have to earn the money, so it’s not as if THEIR blood, sweat and tears put it there, so they’re not having to pay any “real” consequences for their actions should they go astray.
ms537; my point is that the “millions of dollars” that you would prefer to see invested in cleaning up the mess, would be more efficiently employed if there was less mess to clean up in the first place.
you say its a stupid idea, but you dont say why its stupid.
canvashoes; i already explained that its a "carrot & stick" system, but if theres no carrots, then the stick wont work, and if there`s no stick, the carrots wont work either.
as for the money in their accounts not deriving from their"blood, sweat, and years," dont worry about it – they will become providers for the next generation, when they start paying taxes
its not a "payoff", its an investment, in two ways.
– we reduce the financial burden caused by crime. (police time/lawyers/social workers/probation/insurance/vandalism,etc
and therefor we improve the social environment for everybody.
we invest in the individual young people of our country, and hopefully, more of them will become successful than do presently.
if crime can be reduced in the 15 – 25 age group, through this investment/bribe, call it what you will. by 30 or 40%, the whole thing would actually save money that is currently failing to solve the problem, and thats my reason for saying that its worth trying
Because 16-25 year olds aren’t thinking about consequences anyway
Because most criminals assume they won’t get caught
Because it is insanely expensive (2001 US census puts the 24 and under population at 99.4 million. At $10,000 a pop and assuming an equal age distribution, that’s $41.4 BILLION a YEAR (not counting maintenance and distribution costs) that will be required to pay for your dumb idea). By comparison, the US Department of Education is budgeted for $59.5 billion for 2004. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/budget.html
Because you have arbitarily decided that any benefit will offset the cost of the program without any real evidence to support it
Because as you say, most young people are not criminals so why earmark billions to discourage the 1% who are?
Because it does not address the social causes of crime
Because crime (at least in the US) has been steadily decreasing since 1970.
Because simplistic quick fix band aids seldom solve complex issues.
Because it is better to reward people for taking positive actions, not for refraining from negative actions.
Because judges already have the power to forece criminals to pay for damages.
I didn’t address whether or not it was carrot and stick, I underSTOOD what you were trying to get at. My post was explaining first, why it won’t work, and second, given that (among other things) why would we WANT to give over our hard earned money to someone who hasn’t earned it.
Again, and as I said in my first post. Millions of young people manage to “do right” without being paid to do what they should do in the first place, so WHY should we bribe someone?
And again, it doesn’t work with three year olds and candy bars, it doesn’t work with recalcitrant teens DETERMINED to get preggers and go on welfare, so why would it work on the crime rate?
First of all, those of us who currently ARE giving our blood, sweat and tears to taxes ARE gonna worry about it. We don’t like seeing our hard earned money thrown away on goverment idiocy as it is, let’s not add yet ANOTHER waste of tax dollars into the mix.
Secondly, let’s say that those of us who’d be paying for this 10k per brat DIDN’T really care where our money was going. My point was that, since the kid didn’t EARN the money in the first place, it’s not really going to be seen by the kid as a very harsh consequence if it gets taken away.
Generally things have value if one has to put work into them. Some “pot” that’s just sitting there until their 25th birthday, in case they make it that far being “good” isn’t really going to psychologically be much of a real time incentive for kids.
It’s too distant, not real/tangible enough, so the prospect of losing it, especially since it’s “found money” and it’s no skin off of their teeth isn’t exactly going to be the most effective deterrent.
Not like say having your freedom taken away when you commit a crime. THAT is immediate and extremely personal and unpleasant.
Again, based on how children act in similar “bribing” scenarios, this is pretty iffy, AND it’s untried. Most taxpayers aren’t going to want to throw good money after bad.
We already do that, it’s called SCHOOL, Big Brothers/Sisters of America, Sports, counselors, and so on.
The tools are there, whether or not people use them is up to them.
First off, you need to research how many kids in that age group actually commit crimes. You say that 80% of the crime is committed by that age group, but you didn’t provide supporting documentation for that. You also didn’t provide the figures for what percentage withIN that age group that commits crime.
In other words, it’s not 80% of that age group that are committing crimes, it’s X% of that age group that is committing X% of the crimes.
If the percentage of that age group committing crimes is say 25% and the other 75% are normal, motivated kids, why should society pay because of a small portion of bad apples?
hey there folks, take it easy now
jeez, i never new you could get so worked up over a few bucks!
first of all, bear in mind that all of the cash our youth would be raking in, is going to get spent again, its not getting shipped off the planet.
how much does it cost to keep someboby in jail for a year? i`m guessing its more than a measly 10 grand,.
ok, so only a small percentage are criminals. one person can do a lot of crimes,so if we successfully prevent one of those guys from going bananas, an awful lot of potential crime can be avoided – for a mere 10,000.
if criminals “think they wont get caught”, then ok – they get caught, and we dont pay them, – no problem there.
and what about the normal law abiding kids? is £10,000 going to de-motivate them or what?
i hate to say this, but i think you guys are kinda envious that these youngsters will be gettin something that you didnt. all that "millions of dollars" wasted stuff is a cop out. how much does an aircraft carrier cost? or stealth bombers or loads of other stuff the government throws money at, and we dont mind one little bit?
im not scared of the numbers, theres plenty to go around, the omly thing missing is the will to use it .
a 3year old in a supermarket, is not the same as a 16 year old,
what kind of teens do you guys know? every young person ive talked to about this thing, has grasped the concept no problem, im not saying iys a cure for everything, but i havent heard anything yet that makes me think it`s not worth a shot.
:dubious:
Worked up? We’re merely explaining, point by point why your idea is not a workable one.
It’s not necessarily a matter of cash, but one of logic. How we feel or don’t feel about any money being spent on such a ludicrous program is beside the point.
Logically, it’s an unworkable solution. It’s just basic human nature. Paying someone to “be good” isn’t a logical or effective deterrant against potential future crimes.
Again, think about the three year old and the mom in the grocery store. “Be good and you’ll get this candy bar”. Kids of that age aren’t able to make the cognitive leap from the action to the consequence, for it to be effective, the reward first have to be given after the behaviour has ALREADY been performed. Not as a bribe TO perform, kids that little, to put it simply, “just can’t think that far ahead”.
The “carrot” is too far away, too intangible, to put it simply.
Again, you’re making the assumption that each and EVERY child would be committing crimes. Without hard data supporting documention you have no way of knowing what percentage of that age group would be committing crimes and ending up in jail.
Second, to simpy “pay them off” would be to ignore the social difficulties that face the ones who DO commit crimes. Those issues need to be addressed, otherwise it’s like slapping a bandaid on a gaping head wound. All you’ve done is to cover up the problem, you’ve not gone into the wound, checked for underlying damage, sewn it up and put the patient on the appropriate meds.
Let’s say we took one kid who’s just ripe for being a JD. Tell him “okay, you be good, and in 10 years you’ll get 10,000 BUCKS!!! if not? We’ll take X amount for each offense”.
You have not addressed the issues that make this kid likely to offend. What if he comes from a broken, abusive homelife? That far out in the distance doesn’t address any of those problems. They don’t stop him from being beaten, or neglected.
Again, this is the epitome of illogical thinking. You’re going to pay out 99million (or was it billion?) bucks in the off chance that a bribe might stop the 1% of kids who could possibly turn to a life of crime and you’re calling that “mere”?
And again, there are more successful and CURRENT methods for keeping that one person from “going bananas”. Which, by the way, he wouldn’t be able to do under the current system anyway, if he commits a crime he’s going to go to jail.
Um, HUH? This doesn’t even make enough sense to respond to.
No, you’re completely missing one of our points, and that is, since MOST kids manage to be “normal law abiding kids” ANYWAY, why should it be incumbent upon the taxpayer to bribe the potential criminal to behave in a way that they SHOULD be behaving anyway. (remember we haven’t even identified anyone who’s an actual criminal, your whole idea is for “Just In Case”).
I’m laughing here. Again, leave ASIDE how much money it might potentially cost. Psychologically speaking it’s a highly UNSOUND idea.
First of all, we DO “mind one bit” that’s why we have congressmen to whom to complain about how “our” money is being spent, and the ability to vote and so on.
Cool! tell you what then, why don’t you become a lobbyist, go to congress, get the money and start your little program? Did you miss the part where we’re 3 trillion dollars in debt?
No, REALLY? I’m shocked, despite the fact that I’ve raised two of them. From birth, up through the toddler years, and through teenhood.
The point, which you’ve managed to miss yet again, is that similarly to the 3 year old who isn’t able to make the connection between behaving well and getting the candy bar IF he behavies. The 10,000 reward for good behaviour is too far distant to be an effective bribe for good behaviour.
Again, MOST of the teens are going to behave their way quite normally and (for the most part) lawfully into adulthood. It’s QUITE unnecessary to have to bribe the majority to behave.
It’s the troubled youth that we’re trying to catch in this huge and broad net. And THOSE types are going to be troubled for reasons other than that they “need” some sort of payoff in the end. And having that supposed “payoff” won’t stop them, because you haven’t addressed the underlying issues.
The issues that are causing their misbehaviour in the first place.
We’ve “grasped the concept” just fine. We’re saying it’s not workable, and we’re telling you logically, and point by point why not.
You’re cute. I hope you save this thread, print it out, and look back on it after you graduate college and have been out in the world for a few years. Your red face will be able to power a small town for a week.
Yes, we realize how simple things seem when you’re young. How easy it is to be all idealistic and see things only in black and white.
It might help if you do some research into how taxes, our government, and the economy work. Then, do a little research on cognitive reasoning of children, and humans. You’ll see.
Interestingly, this is not an idea dreamed up by the OP. This is a recently debated and controversial Conservative idea in the UK - although not quite as stated. It was mentioned as an “option to be looked at” to offer convicted offenders financial incentives not to re-offend. Which, in many ways, is even worse…
It has been calculated as, in the case of extreme repeat offenders, that the money spent in policing, care workers, attempted rehabilitation, prison housing / guards etc… and all the other official business it takes to apprehend, charge, punish and release under supervision, that the offer of an incentive reward in certain instances (if adhered to) could be extremely cost effective for the state.
Of course, still looks like a bad idea to me, regardless of the money involved, and for many of the reasons outlined. (not addressing social issues etc…) It could even, in my view, end up encouraging crime in some instances.
You do realize that this would be giving would be deliquents a bank account to fund their crimes. Wreck a school. Cool! Kid doesn’t have to pay, parents don’t have to pay. The damages just come out of some mysterious “crime finance” account that you have set up.
