i was just discussing these ideas (benefits and loss of housing) in work... while I'm in no doubt it would upset the guilty parties, where do they go and what do they do?
I don't want to sound like I feel sorry for them, but I'd be worried about the overall long term problem of a groups probability to inflict damage in whatever criminal way getting worse. I had a friend who went to prison for vandalism, when released he had learned his lesson, but because of what he'd done, he couldn't get a job, had no family, no way to earn money, nowhere to live, no address, no dole. He tried his best for as long as he could before he turned to shoplifting just to eat. He got caught by the police but the policeman that caught he just spoke to him calmly, said if he wrote him up he'd be going straight back to prison... but he understood my friends situation and let him go. My friend then sorted his life out, found a place, got a van, then moved to italy to work fixing moutain bikes on big trails. such a good ending, but SOOOO easy for that not to have happened.
Now, I dunno how many of these scumbags are actually claiming benefits for housing or jobseekers, but if the burden of looking after them is taken off the state (freeing up our taxes) then do they end up homeless? a burden on charities which are having funding cut? does the rate of homelessness rise? who will hire these people? worst case scenario might be that the you take these people and throw them onto the streets with absolutely no means to get by like the rest of society and the only thing they can do to live is turn to crime and we know they are pretty good at that and don't care about victims already... I'd actually move out of london if this happened because I'd be terrified of leaving my house.
I don't have an answer. I'm not being sympathetic with the guilty. I just wonder how some of these ideas will pan out. I agree people need to be punished but some of these suggestions feel a bit too knee jerk to me when trying to consider the long term effect.
