Samira wrote:
Quote:
On 9 December, just eight days before Jonathan [Zito]'s death, Christopher Clunis punched a stranger in the face and then attempted to stab two schoolboys with a screwdriver. No action was taken.
Sorry to interrupt with a rational thought, but isn't this the problem?
There were warning signs. There was an assault. No action was taken, when intervention was most needed.
Was busy in meetings, but I think this bears note.
Nobby. You're arguing a case for the state taking punitive action against someone purely based on assessments of "risk factor". I've argued repeatedly and consistently that we should instead be looking at people who actually commit crimes/violence/whatever before taking such action.
Doesn't it seem the least bit odd to you that both examples you've used to support your argument involve a situation in which violence was noted but the system ignored it? Waiting until someone actually commits a criminal act works. If you actually make note of it and investigate when you see evidence of said acts. The failure in those two cases was that the state didn't act when it saw clear evidence that a crime was being committed.
You don't fix that by expanding the range of things that the state can act on. It's just an absurd reaction. It's like a hunter who keeps shooting himself in the foot buying a bigger and more powerful gun to fix the problem...
