You can’t fix stupid

Britain, apparently, has solved the puzzle of criminal recidivism (H/T Melanie Phillips of the Spectator).

I know that this story provides us with a most important clue as to the greater disease that afflicts Western Civilization.

I really just don’t know what to do with this story, so I am passing it on to all of you greater intellects and other Bookworm Room habitues for a more proper fisking while I try to reorient my conceptualization of the “real world”.

We are doomed!

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. excathedra says

    James Burnham figured it all out 50 years ago.
     

    The most important practical consequence of the guilt encysted in the liberal ideology and psyche is this: that the liberal, and the group, nation or civilization infected by liberal doctrine and values, are morally disarmed before those whom the liberal regards as less well off than himself.

    1964 – from Suicide of the West

    The judgements that liberals render on public issues, domestic and foreign, are as predictable as the salivation of Pavlovian dogs.

    1964 – from Suicide of the West

  2. says

    Heather Munro had a very good record in Leicestershire before being tapped for the London position. Whether the term “customer” is appropriate or not, it makes sense to treat people with humanity if you want them to act humanely.

  3. says

    Z forgot about all he went on and on about the evils of capitalism and how it needs to be “balanced” by government power.

    So when the government goes into business with criminals as their customers, Z’s consistent position isn’t that this is treating them with humanity but controlling a capitalist system using government levers.

    You know what they say about Leftist judgments. A hero of the Left is most probably, and perhaps often times definitely, a corrupt bastard, a lying child rapist, a despicable con artist, or just a plain old traitor. Whereas those who the Left revile are often wise the best of the best of humanity in virtue, character, and strength.

    So when Z gives the nod of approval to Heather Munro… well

  4. says

    Ymarsakar: So when the government goes into business with criminals as their customers, Z’s consistent position isn’t that this is treating them with humanity but controlling a capitalist system using government levers.

    Munro is not starting a criminal enterprise with people under probation authority. Nor is the term “customer” being adopted as official terminology. 
     
    Ymarsakar: A hero of the Left is most probably, and perhaps often times definitely, a corrupt bastard, a lying child rapist, a despicable con artist, or just a plain old traitor.

    Do you consider hate-mongering to be persuasive somehow? 
     

  5. Charles Martel says

    Munroe presents no evidence that her approach works. It’s all based on feelings and surmise, as though her imagining how a poor probationer feels in a dingy waiting room is somehow key to a great criminological breakthrough.

    This is one more example of the triumph form over substance—what’s important is not that some “customer” feels good because he’s sitting in a cheery room, it’s whether the probationary process has discomfited the little prick enough to keep him from committing another crime.

  6. says

    Charles Martel: Munroe presents no evidence that her approach works.

    As we said, Munro was very successful in Leicestershire before taking the job in London. Whether her methods will transfer to the big city is still an open question. 
     

  7. says

    Mrs Munro said the answer to helping criminals quit crime was to consider their feelings and think about how an offender would feel walking into a probation office.

    No, the answer to helping criminals quit crime is for them to realize that it is more dangerous outside prison then inside. Being inside jail protects them from being found and killed by we the people, with great prejudice. When criminals start thinking that way, their behavior will correct itself.

    They must come to a state of being where if offered a parole, they will refuse it more times than not, citing the safety of prison over the insecurity of a parole. Besides criminals have no honor. How can you give them parole? Insanity and ridiculousness combined. Only honorable agents can be given parole.

  8. says

    Z is the same person that believes ClimateGate was a minor malfunction and that the data they falsely fabricated is true, clear, and scientifically verified by “peers”. And now he wants us to believe him when he says he knew Heather was “successful”.

    Hah

  9. says

    Ymarsakar: Besides criminals have no honor. How can you give them parole?

    There is no redemption. May as well execute jaywalkers.
     
    Ymarsakar: Z is the same person that believes ClimateGate was a minor malfunction and that the data they falsely fabricated is true, clear, and scientifically verified by “peers”. 

    Several independent investigations showed there was no wrong-doing.
     

  10. Charles Martel says

    Ymarsakar, you’re never going to get Zach to admit that AGW is a hoax. He’s a Millerite. (The Millerites were the disciples of William Miller, an American preacher who said the world was going to end sometime between March 21, 1843 and March 1, 1844. Of course it didn’t, but many of his followers clang to his end-times theology. One branch later became what we now know as the Seventh Day Adventists.) There is nothing that will persuade him otherwise.

    As some wag once said, if you could produce 100 high-pixel videotapes from every conceivable angle showing that Lee Harvey Oswald was JFK’s lone assassin, there would still be an irreducible 27 percent of people who believe Kennedy’s death was a conspiracy. Guess where Zack would fall? 

  11. Danny Lemieux says

    Z, do you have any data to support your contention that Heather Munro “was very successful” in Leicestershire? What was the definition of “very successful”? Who determined that she was “successful”?

  12. Mike Devx says

    This guy came up to me last night, and he said, “I’m going to bash your skull in with this hammer, and then I’m going to carve out your heart and eat it, while your eyes can still watch me.”

    But he’s not a murderer, he’s an end of life facilitator, and he was just about to end of life facilitate me.  Of course, then I woke up.  But there’s no waking up in England, where this insanity is REAL.

    And some people here, whom I won’t name, think this is not both howlingly funny and incredibly pitiful at the same time.

  13. says

    Danny Lemieux: Z, do you have any data to support your contention that Heather Munro “was very successful” in Leicestershire?

    (Would it matter? Citations don’t seem to have much influence on this forum.)

    “Under her leadership, Leicestershire and Rutland and its 550 employees consistently topped the performance league tables, scooped a clutch of excellence awards and were one of the first services to be awarded trust status.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/apr/13/uk-probation-interview-heather-munro

    You can probably get the primary data from the U.K. Parole Board. The London parole office is six times the size, so it remains to be seen whether Munro can be successful in changing the prevailing dynamic.

  14. Charles Martel says

    “Under her leadership, Leicestershire and Rutland and its 550 employees consistently topped the performance league tables, scooped a clutch of excellence awards and were one of the first services to be awarded trust status.”

    Wow, that brings it home! Who in his right mind would not want to scoop a clutch of excellence awards? Or be awarded trust status! (Not a single mention of reduced recidivism rates or actual statistics, which Zack always demands—except in cases like this where he places himself above such silly requirements.)

  15. Danny Lemieux says

    I was going to ask the same things, Charles M.: what does  ”topping performance league tables” mean, upon what metrics are those based and how is “excellence” defined?

    Telling us that we can research those things on our own is not helpful and certainly suggests that the Z team, once again, took statements such as these at face value because they fit the Z premise.

    Here’s my advice: never take statements or statistics at face value.

  16. says

    (Would it matter? Citations don’t seem to have much influence on this forum.)

    Scholarly and academic citations work in this fashion.

    The author crafts a thesis or simply a claim and then uses citations to justify that claim. Thus, if a person wishes to claim that the sky is blue, they then get a citation from somebody else attesting to the fact that he indeed did see the sky and the sky was blue. In this fashion, this avoids self-bias in terms of utilizing only sources of information known to the author himself. He is not relegated to only justifying his belief that the sky is blue because he himself saw the sky and it was blue.

    Good scholarly work, however, does not tolerate plagiarism. Which is to say using a citation as your thesis/claim, and then saying, well, this is my point and this guy made it for me and since this guy is right and powerful, I am right and powerful. No, Z, that would be an entirely erroneous chain of argument. If you have a statement you wish to make, the scholar makes it himself and only then does he use citations as justifications and as background support. He does not start off with a citation and says “this is the author”. No, if that is the author (of your ideas), then you’re plagiarizing his work for your own.

    When Danny challenges you with the point of what your beliefs are based upon, it’s very simple. It’s not very complicated at all to produce good justified claims using complete sentences, Z.

    When you are asked to produce your sources and explain their veracity, quality, and relevance to your thesis argument, the proper response is not “look it up yourself”. Shouldn’t a Leftist like you understand how the doctorate system works? Maybe you need to go back for retraining under Zinn and Chomsky.

  17. says

    So basically, Z, the reason why your citations are poorly thought of here is because you are utilizing them inadequately, plus they are themselves inaccurate sources that are biased and unable to be corroborated.

    The most that can be summarized of your productions here is this:

    Z:”Heather Munro performed well because the Guardian reported this:
    “Under her leadership, Leicestershire and Rutland and its 550 employees consistently topped the performance league tables, scooped a clutch of excellence awards and were one of the first services to be awarded trust status. “”

    Huh. Heather Munro performed well and the only reason you can give is because the Guardian told you so… hrmph.

    Btw, newspaper reports are not considered accurate scholarly sources. This simply means they are inadequate. They can be included as “atmosphere” and as support for far more credible and accurate sources, but not as the primary source and certainly not the sole source. A source is not equivalent to a reason. There are many reasons why Heather Munro could be said to have “performed well”, a source is only one reason or justification. On top of having credible, authentic, and accurate sources, you also need reasons to tie it all together. So the question must be answered, if Z thinks Munro did well, then what makes him think this is true just because the Guardian reported it so?

  18. says

    Here’s my advice: never take statements or statistics at face value.

    But danny, don’t you know that it is simply dangerous not to listen to whatever you are told to think and do by the Left, when you are in their grasps? Why, if a person of the Left started to have an independent thought, would there be massive trouble? Like with Juan Williams or even Bill Cosby?

    Can you imagine the horrors the Leftist Democrats would use to punish one of their own who had strayed.

  19. says

    We can quarrel with her means, but she seems to have the right ends in mind:  “She is determined that success lies in moving to a system that measures success on the basis of reoffending rates. “What I want is much more of a longer-term goal, to turn the organisation around so it really is delivering on the outcomes: focusing on what does reduce reoffending.”  Let’s see how she does.

  20. jj says

    I’ve lived in England.  “Shabby waiting rooms” and “dingy offices” – that is exactly the way most British companies, as dispirited as they are, treat their customers.  In fact, that’s London these days: shabby and dingy.  And smelling nearly as bad as San Francisco.

  21. Charles Martel says

    San Francisco, despite the unfortunate waft of urine and feces here and there, does have a great smell of eucalyptus and restaurant-grilled food. Throw in an occasional sea breeze and if you close your eyes you can almost imagine what it was like before the rich turned much of it into a cesspool.

  22. SADIE says

    Z said: (Would it matter? Citations don’t seem to have much influence on this forum.)
     
    Aww…c’mon guys, you’re making it tough for me to issue zach a citation for driving on the ‘left’ side of the road :)

  23. 11sunflower says

    I am so stuck on the need to change “gang rape” to “group rape” that I have nothing else to add.  That sensitive change will make the recovery for a woman raped by mulitple men(animals) at one time so much more tolerable and dignified.  

  24. says

    I do know one thing that is guaranteed to stop repeat crimes. If a citizen happens to kill the criminal red handed using the most convenient and popular tool of all, the handgun.

    That’s a guaranteed no repeat offense there. Everything else is only a promise, often times not guaranteed or backed up by anything.

  25. says

    Charles Martel: Wow, that brings it home! Who in his right mind would not want to scoop a clutch of excellence awards? Or be awarded trust status! (Not a single mention of reduced recidivism rates or actual statistics, which Zack always demands—except in cases like this where he places himself above such silly requirements.)

    U.K. parole boards are rated on a number of criteria, including being recalled from parole following an allegation of another crime. If you are interested, you can read their reports on their website, or request a copy.
     
    Ymarsakar: Btw, newspaper reports are not considered accurate scholarly sources. 

    No, they’re called secondary sources. Did you dispute the previous source?

    London Probation Trust: “Ms Munro takes over from Paul Wilson, who led London Probation Trust on an interim basis. Heather had previously worked as LPT’s Deputy Chief Executive, after leaving her position as head of Leicester and Rutland Probation Trust, an organisation which under her watch had been the highest performing probation area in the country according to government statistics.”
    http://www.london-probation.org.uk/news/new_chief_executive.aspx
     

  26. Mike Devx says

    Z says,
    > Would it matter? Citations don’t seem to have much influence on this forum.

    These are days where absolutely everything has been politicized.  Of *course* citations do not have much influence on this forum, Z!   We’ve all been around the block a time or two.

    I’m sure there do exist unbiased studies.  Good luck determining which are and which aren’t.  Studies and the pursuit of money (government grants, natch! Taxpayer money, line up at the trough, my little piggies!) are often tied together, and where money’s involved, deviousness knows no end of illusion and deceit.

  27. Mike Devx says

    I meant to say, “where the pursuit of money is involved”, not money itself.  Money is merely an exhange mechanism.

    Much like “Money is the root of all evil” is an egregious misquote…  Those who will do anything for money, well, they literally *will* do anything for money.  Those who produce studies and lust for money will produce those studies (and provide the fodder for “citations”) that will provide for them the money they are seeking.  Period.

    Except it’s not that simple.  Because it’s taxpayer money.  Doled out by the government.  As a favor of power.  By those in power with an agenda.  As a tool of power to achieve that agenda.  Power and money.

Leave a Reply