How not to deal with anti-social behaviour

If there’s one thing this legislature-happy government has failed to do (among the gazillion other things), it’s deal with anti-social behaviour and Britain’s increasing social problems in the correct way. For those across the pond who may be unaware, we have something in Britain called an ASBO – an Anti-Social Behaviour Order – as well as CRASBOs (Criminal Related Anti-Social Behaviour Order). Can’t say I knew about the latter before I did some digging.

So what is an ASBO? It’s essentially a civil order that people get slammed with for engaging in “anti-social” behaviour that may have otherwise resulted “alarm, harassment, or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as him or herself”. Yes, this is the Justice System’s answer to a slap on the wrist. The thing is, what is anti-social behaviour? Is it dealing with the increase in drunken violence among younger age groups? No. Is it helping to maintain order by dissuading people from making trouble that intentionally upsets or intimidates people? Not exactly.

Despite its intention, ASBOs seem to be rather misguided – or is it perhaps the definition of anti-social behaviour that’s the problem? Whilst slapping petty thieves, abusive youths and vandalists is all well and good, does it not seem a tad too much when you ban people from entering their own front door? Oh but that’s just the beginning. Read this. The ones that jump out at me are pretty far fetched and even Thatcher would scoff at this (though she might rather prefer to just beat people into line…).

2. An 18-year-old youth was recently made the subject of an ASBO in the same city with a condition not to congregate with three or more other youths. He was subsequently arrested for breach of his order when he was entering a local youth club on the grounds that there were more than three youths in the premises. This was a successful club with a good reputation providing a valuable service to young people locally, and on the particular evening the session scheduled for the youths was how to deal with anti-social behaviour.

This is one that isn’t all that uncommon, unfortunately. Plenty of ASBOs have been dispensed that have conditions of not associating with a small number of youths at any one time in any one place. The problem, as if it wasn’t patently obvious, is that young people tend to spend time around young people. So in response to anti-social activities they decide to make him -ohemgee- anti-social? Nice.

5. A drug addict faced jail if he was caught sleeping in the street or begging in “an earnest or humble way”. Greater Manchester police obtained an ASBO against Peter Broadbent aged 36 after he pleaded guilty to rough sleeping under the Napoleonic Begging Laws. He was found under the Mancunian Way surrounded by needles and now faces up to five years jail if he breaches. During the year, another homeless man, Leonard Hockey, who begged in a non-aggressive way in Kendal’s car park was ASBOed. He was later breached and jailed and died before finishing his sentence. Broadbent’s ASBO prevents him from sleeping rough contrary to Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and asking “earnestly or humbly” for money in a place to which the public have access. He is also banned from selling the Big Issue without a license.

The 1824 Act states: “Every person wandering abroad, or placing himself or herself in any public place . . . to beg or gather alms . . . shall be deemed an idle and disorderly person . . . and it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace to commit such offender . . . to the house of correction.” Regardless of why people are homeless or begging, does it not seem an injustice that someone cannot beg in a non-aggressive way without being labelled anti-social? What’s worse is the blatent disregard the Greater Manchester police apparently have for people being in such a position; we have so many factions within the police force or working with them in an attempt to provide homes for homeless people yet there does seem to be a growing trend of hostility with regards to .

9. A 50-year-old man with numerous convictions for shoplifting, clearly ill and a kleptomaniac, was banned from going into certain shops. If he entered other shops the condition of the ASBO was he told the shopkeepers of his conviction and the condition.

Bear in mind that violating an ASBO can result in fines or imprisonment, does this not seem a tad heavy handed? What really gets me is that if the ASBO highlights that he has a “condition” then clearly they recognise he has a problem – why the hell not instead issue and order to undergo therapy, treatment or at least seek a doctor’s opinion on what to do? Sounds to me as if he needs someone to help him, not be branded an anti-socialist.

10. A teenage boy in the Oldham area has been banned from displaying the name of a gang anywhere on his body. The ASBO was issued to Damien White which banned him from the district of Sholber. The order prevents him from displaying a gang name “Mayhem” on any part of his body or publicly displaying any mark or words to identify himself with any gang or group of youths causing a criminal act or anti-social behaviour.

I can understand the intention to dissuade with this one but “Mayhem” is hardly an unusual word, much less in tattooing (I’ve seen it a fair few times in my relatively short lifetime, albeit upside down a good few times). I’m intrigued as to what the circumstances where that he didn’t do something enough to be punished by mainstream methods but enough to have a restriction on what he can and cannot defile his body with.

11. A 13-year-old was served an order banning him from using the word “grass” anywhere in England and Wales. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)

I’m not even going to try and understand the remote possibility as to how this one came around.

13. In February 2003, a 16-year-old boy was banned from showing his tattoos, wearing a single golf glove, or wearing a balaclava in public anywhere in the country. He was also forbidden from congregating in public places in groups of more than three people. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)

Unless the tattoo was on his penis (or was of a penis) I fail to see the reasoning behind this. Sounds like a pretty gangsta look I guess but again, if this is all part of anti-social behaviour then I’m not seeing just how this constitutes as punishment or deterence.

19. The oldest recipient of an order to date is an 87-year-old who among other things is forbidden from being sarcastic to his neighbours (July 2003). He was subsequently found guilty of breaking the terms of his order on three separate occasions. He awaits sentencing but the judge has already made it clear that “there will be no prison for an 88 year old man”. (Source—Statewatch ASBOwatch)

I have two words for this: fuck and off. Over and over.

29. The endless blazing rows of a couple in Blackburn led to their being made the subject of an ASBO barring them from contacting each other. The 47-year-old man was additionally ordered not to go within 50m of his fiancé’s home. He argued this was completely over the top and Blackburn magistrates eventually backed down and overturned the order. (Source—BBC News)

What they’re not telling you is that she was the one who requested the ASBO in the first place. Yeah, okay, this one just makes me giggle.

But anyway, the point of it all is that this is simply an ineffective and poorly managed form of crime prevention and anti-social behaviour dissuasion. The sentiment behind it is a nice one, and given the rise in social problems (reportedly) it’s understandable that our government would want to tackle anti-social behaviour but this can’t be the way. It’s not the fact that there are problems – everything is flawed – it’s the sheer idiocy that causes the problems, a level of base stupidity that seeps from the obvious pot holes in the legislation.

ASBOs merely play up to the myth of youth culture and in turn are what’s widening the gap between adults and adolescents. There must be a better way to approach anti-social behaviour that involves people rather than isolates and persecutes them.