The bleeding hearts commeth - "Don't send the rioters to jail".

Young rioters should be spared jail, says Birmingham councillor

 Indeed?

Young people involved in riots that have erupted across England should not be sent to prison, a leading councillor has said.

Les Lawrence, a Tory councillor and Birmingham's cabinet member for children, young people and families, told CYP Now that sending large numbers of children to custody could end up reinforcing bad behaviour.

Where do these bleeding hearts come up with their excuses? How on earth can sending them to prison reinforce bad behaviour?

Is he possibly referring to the idea that says people in prison learn to be better criminals? Maybe so, but that doesn't apply here. It can be argued that when a person of previous good character commits a low level crime, sending them to prison may do more harm than good. It may be possible to deter them from future crimes by giving them a community sentence.

The riots that we have seen over the past couple of days are very far from low level crimes and they have been committed by people who have had no correct upbringing. Their criminal activities will not be curtailed by a slap on the wrist, they are way beyond that and need taking out of society for a very long time, not for their own benefit but for the benefit of the next business owner whose property they may torch.

Lawrence's comments come at a time when the youth custody population is at an historic low.
Scores of places have been decommissioned by the Youth Justice Board and the hope of the coalition government is that numbers can be reduced further through sentencing reforms currently going through parliament.

Maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe we are using the softly softly approach in too many situations where a heavy hand is required. Sentencing is not only about rehabilitation, it's also about protecting the public at large.

Lawrence said a three-pronged approach is necessary to deal with the fallout of the violence. "We have never really tackled parental responsibility in relation to the criminal activity of those under the age of 16. In my view, action should be taken against the parents as being complicit".

Here's my three pronged approach. Nick 'em, lock 'em up, throw away the key.

"We also need to use strong restorative justice community penalties. They should be made to work to repair the damage they have caused and understand the responsibility they have for the actions they have taken.

Utter bollocks. None of these feral rodents are carpenters, glaziers or builders. How are they supposed to repair any of the damage they have done?

"Thirdly, the police have the power to seize assets for major crime. If you take their TVs or Xbox they may understand the consequences and responsibilities associated with their actions. These things don’t need the secure estate."

Utter bollocks (Have I said that already?). Yes the police do have the power to seize assets for major crime. They tend to do this once the major criminal has been safely locked up.

Even if the police could use these powers to confiscate Playstations, they don't have the power to stop the useless parents spending the benefit money on another one to shut the little buggers up.

And what would it achieve anyway? A bunch of feral scrots without x-boxes, who have form for looting electrical shops for the stuff they want.

You can't loot Argos from within the four greys.

As Leg-Iron points out, this bleeding heart moron is a Tory councillor. When did red and blue blend to become yellow?