Day 119: Capitalism Part 7 - Remove children from criminal families at birth to save them from crime, says top judge

Article: Remove children from criminal families at birth to save them from crime, says top judge

"Babies born to prostitutes, drug addicts and other criminals should be adopted at birth to prevent them  following their parents into jail, a  leading judge has said.
Alan Goldsack QC, the Recorder of Sheffield, said it was the state’s duty to intervene to stop the ‘next generation of criminals’.
He said it was ‘frightening’ how many of the criminals he was sentencing today were the grandchildren of those he had dealt with 40 years ago.
‘Crime runs in families the same way that being a doctor, teacher or lawyer does,’ he said in an interview to mark his retirement.
‘Some people become criminals because they enjoy crime and think it’s a good way of life and if they don’t get caught they think they can have a good lifestyle.
‘But a frightening thing is the number of people I see who are the grandchildren of the people I have prosecuted and defended 40 years ago.’
The state had to ‘remove young babies from the families that are going to produce the next generation of  criminals’, he said.
He added that a dysfunctional family would often have £250,000 spent on them, ‘but if we get in early and removed children we could save thousands’.
He said a ‘huge proportion’ of prisoners were a ‘product of the care system’.

Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of the charity Kids Company, said taking children from criminal families was not the right solution
Camila Batmanghelidjh, founder of Kids Company, said: ‘This protest is directed at the wrong corner of the problem.
'If you look at the baby in their cot, they are not a criminal. Taking babies from parents because they happen to be in criminal families is not the right solution.
'We need to address the way that we work with disturbed families and children.’
Alison Worsley of Barnardo’s said the Government needed to do more to support children of prisoners."

So what is the problem with the solution suggested by this judge? Let us firstly place ourselves in the shows of someone who becomes a criminal - For varying reasons - people are either forced into criminal activities or choose to do so to have better lives. For example what he is referring to as prostitutes and other people who have chosen a live of crime - if one were to really take a look inside the life of a person who chose crime over starvation, you will find that a large percentage of children born into this world - who end up with career choices that are 'against the law' did not grow up thinking they want to necessarily 'break laws and place themselves into dangerous, health risking situations, shortening their life spans, for the rest of their lives. Most of these individuals for those who do their research realized that a) in the current money system they require to obtain a piece of paper or else they do not get access to food, fresh water a roof over their heads and a life style that they see most other people in their communities get to have - such as clothing, cars, jewelry, a social life etc. Therefore socio-economic situations are in a large percentage of the cases the reason behind why a human would ignore societal and religion issues of morality and turn towards careers that are indeed profitable.

Many people say that they will never turn to things like drug selling/smuggling/trafficking/robberies or prostitution - but imagine you were never raised with indoctrination about right/wrong, good/bad, hell/heaven and you become a young adult and now the rules of the system are quite clear -do or die. Is it really the place for any person to firstly blame these people who realize they have to work for a piece of paper to survive - who then follow where they are able to get jobs - and do so - who are we as society to judge the reasoning for a person for having to survive?

So lets consider the points that the judge missed as he swooped past self-responsibility to 'take babies away from people' Firstly - as we have already covered earlier -isn the fact that we have equated life to survival and to survive you need a piece of paper - and the rules in society are quite clear about this.

Secondly, if these masses of individuals are finding all of these jobs because they are better paying than 'ordinary', acceptable career/job choices and the market for these 'services' are so vast that there are basically jobs for alot of people within one city/society - should we not then rather turn our focus to the understanding and realization that the problem indeed exists around the fact that these people who have to now survive by obtaining a piece of paper - with issues of morality removed either through choice or through it not existing within the individual in the first place - where they then have all of these job opportunities available to commit these crimes - is because we as the public (who like to blame and point fingers) are the customers and consumers? There would not be such a problem of people turning to crime such as drug dealing, prostitution, child trafficking, war etc - if it were not for the vast amounts of people who actually use these services - so again here we are faced with the lack of responsibility within the public - where we are actually asking for these services and then blame the younger generation for who survival in the system to get pieces of paper to have access to resources  - is getting harder and harder!

So here we have already seen 2 points from which society and the individual who judges and the politicians and the lawmakers have completely run away from, and ignored. Instead we look 'ahead'' - away from the original cause of why these individuals chose a life of crime instead of working in sweat shops in condemned buildings or at MacDonald's, for minimum wages, for the rest of their lives...



INSTEAD of addressing for example the rules and principled of capitalism which drive people to extremes to survive, and the extensive brainwashing that happens every day by our permission, through the media  - where people are brainwashed to believe that they must have the life styles of the rich, as it is portrayed through constantly showing the opposite polarities of 'have/not have - to be the complete and ultimate desire of any and all human beings - we instead say 'lets rather take their children away'. That is why when you speak about Equality - you will be shot down, even by spiritualists and people who discuss conspiracy theories about 'the system' and those who claim to want to 'save humanity'. Why? Because the brainwashing around the separation between rich and poor has become so acceptable  - that NOBODY is willing to admit that they see and understand that if we constantly portray the life of the rich as something desirable and that you have to either be born into it, work like a slave to get to it or steal it - then you are just not going to ever experience the enjoyment of what it means to 'have'. There has been so much emphasis programmed into the human - about the emotional and energetic experience of being rich - that nobody wants to let go of this polarity - everybody still desires to be the one who has alot of money and this experience of having more/having a special life style is only possible if we have an opposite polarity of the 'have not's/ the poor/ those who live with only the basics.



Therefore one can say what you want - but if one still believe that our lives here are meant to be lived to try and obtain happiness through obtaining more money than others and to have a life style that is 'special' which means others dont get to have it - then obviously in common sense one sees that the programming of oneself is extensive - in how one has categorized your own value systems to suit your secret desires for a happiness point found within this polarity game of rich versus poor.

Therefore what we are seeing here through the words of this judge, is again an example of how we will deliberately find ways to protect those who have money by finding ways of controlling those who want money - just like we see on the billboards and in the magazines every second of every day. This 'judge' for example, does not want us to solve the original cause of why people turn to crime, the thought process that play a decisive role in why someone turns to a life style of crime - he instead wants to remove children from criminals so that we have a point of relieve within the system - a way of feeling 'ok' that we have yet again moved further and further away from actually stopping the problem - where we basically 'get to keep the problem'. So - what happens to these children - they are again inserted into the same system that forces them to either work hard for the money or choose a life of crime. And isn't that the same decision their parents were faced with?


Further Research:

Economist's Journey to Life