Prisoners and Clothing

The petition is entitled allow all prisoners there basic human right to wear underware that has not been worn by anyone befor and the explanatory notes say

"At the present time what is happening those that don't have the money to buy their own underwear, they have to wear prison issue. and What happens is this underwear has to go in the same wash as the sheets and blankets. So when they get them back they don't know who has been wearing them befor i feel this an infringment of there basic human rights and thing need to be changed"

I feel that I really shouldn't feel that someone who can't write correct English should be ignored. However, it's hard to take a petitioner who writes like this entirely seriously - which is, I feel sure, very wrong of me.

So what about the content of the petition? I suspect that in most senses it's not all that much more insane than many of the ones I pass by for insufficient madness. Having said which, it is moderately clearly mad. According to that great reliable resource Wikipedia,

Where it has been adopted, legislation commonly contains:

• security rights that protect people against crimes such as murder, massacre, torture and rape;
• liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement;
• political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a republic;
• due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments;
• equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination;
• welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the provision of education and protections against severe poverty and starvation;
• group rights that provide protection for groups against ethnic genocide and for the ownership by countries of their national territories and resources.

Nowhere in there do I see anything about personal underwear rights.

I grant you the thought of wearing someone else's pants is a bit icky. A while ago while I was having trouble sourcing the kind of pyjamas I like wearing I tried Ebay, but found myself unable to cope with the idea of second-hand pyjamas, though I'll happily wear second-hand trousers, shirts, etc., etc.. (Should you be wondering, and of course I'm sure you're all dying of curiosity, I was of course able to search Ebay for "new" products only and thereby locate what I sought.) A strange objection, I thought at the time. So - I don't like the thought of these poor prisoners in each other's pants. But, um - on the scale of things, I don't see that it's really terribly important. I can't help feeling there are bigger and more important things to worry about.

And I really, really, really don't think this is a basic human right ...

Protecting Children

The petition is entitled save our precious children from all the evil paedofiles and the explanatory notes say

"We need laws and legislation that once the police have caught any paedofile, and they are found guilty they are then locked up for the length of their life. We need harsher sentences and life should mean life with no appeal. Our children should not be abused in any way - they should all have a happy life without evil peering round the corners of our streets."

To be honest, while I don't particularly agree with the sentiment in its entirety (or the spelling, for that matter), I'm most taken by the idea that there are "evil" paedophiles and "precious" children - the implication being that the non-precious children need not be protected from anyone, and that the precious children only need to be protected from the evil paedophiles, not the non-evil ones!

As far as anything else goes I shall merely point out that the petitioner has fallen for the hype; that the same proportion of children are subjected to sex abuse and to stranger sex attacks as ever were, and that the vast majority of sex attacks on children are by people known to them.

Criminals and the Army Again

The petition is entitled Make Criminals Join The Army And Serve In War Zones During Their Sentence! and the explanatory notes say

"Relieve the burden on the state by making criminals serve their sentence constructively by joining the Army and serving in war zones, this will eleviate the strain on our prison space and tax payers, and provide a more contructive way to repay their dept to society, whilst easing the current pressure on our Armed Forces."

Not only is the petitioner an inconsiderate muppet (c.f. my previous blog entry Prison Overcrowding - Conscription), but she hasn't the nous to check to see if she's duplicating another petition, either.

So let me repeat: this would be enormously unfair on the armed services, who have signed up to serve their countries as professional soldiers, not as prison officers. It would, I imagine, be grossly expensive in terms of NCO time and probably also military police time. It would further degrade the status of the armed forces in the public's eyes (and clearly petitioners like these don't think much of them in the first place!).

What I should have said in detail last time I posted about this, and didn't, was that for any woolly liberals who think they'd benefit from a more sympathetic and/or understanding and/or positive perspective on the military, I recommend either or both of John Ringo's Legacy of the Aldenata books and/or John Ringo and David Weber's Empire of Man series. The first two books in both series are available from the Baen Free Library. This blog is in general a stunningly negative thing; it is nice to be able to positively recommend some life-brightening things as well.

Prisons Abroad

The petition is entitled Build Prisons abroad where land is cheaper to accommodate long serving criminals and the explanatory notes say

"We need more prisons yet land is expensive in the UK so why not build prisons abroad to house criminals serving long sentences? This would then free up prisons in the UK so that criminals can be properly punished instead of having to release them early for good behaviour. This could save the taxpayer millions every year."

Why on earth should "abroad" want our criminals imprisoned on their land ...?

Slightly unsure about the "free up prisons in the UK so that criminals can be properly punished" - it almost suggests that only the shorter-term prisoners here would be "properly punished".

Then there's the question of who'd be employed as prison officers. Presumably not British citizens - you'd have to be paying enough for them to come and go from whichever bit of "abroad" was chosen, which would surely be filthy expensive. Or if you were employing locals - well - the UK would have to do things very carefully in order to have the right to dictate how prisoners were treated, and to keep up inspections, and so on.

There is also the issue - if one is concerned by this sort of thing, which many petitioners clearly are not - of the prisoners' rights. In particular I think of family contact ...

But mostly I think - no government with any sense would allow the UK to run a prison on its soil. Now, I don't know that governments normally have any sense at all, but I can't imagine them having that little.

Protection of Law Abiding Citizens

The petition is entitled Protect Law Abiding Members of Society and the explanatory notes say

"The laws of the United Kingdom have been set out through the ages to protect society. If a person has been found guilty of breaking these laws, then they should not be able to claim protection under the same laws that they have willfully broken."

So, say I ... get caught speeding; doing 35 in a 30 zone, say. And then six months later I'm raped. Say. Your position appears to be that I would then have no entitlement to have the rapist caught and charged with his crime ...

Or perhaps you mean only literally "the same laws". So that, perhaps, someone who committed a burglary when young and foolish, but took his punishment on the chin and has since reformed and lived a sin-free life, should have no protection against being burgled himself?

If this isn't what you mean, petitioner, may I suggest you rephrase yourself? You are not Humpty Dumpty, and when you say something it means what we understand the words to mean, no more and no less.

Capital Punishment

The petition is entitled use the dealth penalty for everyone who breaks the law and the explanatory notes say

"No one would break the law then"

Someone has sort-of signed this petition with the "name" of

"These get better. Right. Just off to turn myself in - nicked a biro from work and so must die."

Really, I'm not sure there's any more to say than that.

However, let's try. First problem I see relates to miscarriages of justice. Because these sometimes happen, you have to let people make appeals and things. When the punishment is loss of life, traditionally, more appeals are allowed. So capital punishment is expensive and time-consuming for the entire justice system. Having it for all crimes would cause chaos - unless you disallowed all the appeals and things, whereupon you're going to kill innocent people.

But perhaps you believe that everyone's guilty of something so everyone should die. That might work.

Then there's the fact that presumably no one would plead guilty to anything any more, because that way they might have a hope of living. I'm under the impression that this would lead to vast quantities of jury trials - so more expense and time-consuming-ness.

Then, of course, there's the fact that you'd end up killing almost everyone. I think my only law-breaking's been speeding, for which I've never been caught - though you may wish to include my occasionally pinching a bit of milk from a housemate. Still, it's probably true that you'd end up killing everyone. Which could get a bit complicated - once you were down to twelve people, you couldn't have a jury to find them guilty ...

I rather imagine that fewer people would be found guilty than currently. I don't think, if I were on a jury, I could bear to find someone guilty of ... well ... much, if the sentence was bound to be death. And I don't suppose I'm alone.

I'm not even sure it would stop me speeding, given that I usually do it either entirely by accident or on a motorway where there are hundreds of cars all of us going at 80mph.

Education in Crime Prevention

The petition is entitled Make mandatory educational a component of sentencing and the explanatory notes say

"In order to tackle the number of people who become involved in repeat offending due to their poor literacy and numeracy preventing them from finding employment, the government should make attaining B at GCSE Math and English (+ 1 practical subject) a precondition for release from prison for repeat offenders."

I shouldn't mock this perfectly reasonable suggestion, I really shouldn't.

But there's something terribly ironic about someone suggesting poor literacy is a problem and therefore requesting "mandatory educational" and that people study "Math". It's unbelievably cruel of me to mock. But I'm afraid it made me laugh.

People really, really should proof-read ...

Tougher Sentences for Paedophiles

The petition is entitled Bring tougher sentences to pedophiles & child molesters: The Slaughter of Innocence and the explanatory notes say

"More than 25 per cent of all rapes recorded by the police are committed against children under 16 years of age.

One per cent of children experienced sexual abuse by a parent or carer and another three per cent by another relative during childhood. Eleven per cent of children experience sexual abuse by people known but unrelated to them. Five per cent of children experience sexual abuse by an adult stranger or someone they have just met.

Three-quarters of sexually abused children do not tell anyone about the abuse at the time, and around a third still have not told anyone about their experience(s) by early adulthood.

Is it not time to bring real justice to this slaughter of innocence?"

A while spent searching the internet leads me to think that the petitioner derives his figures from These NSPCC statistics.

Horrible figures. Horrible things happening. Dreadful.

What the hell does the petitioner think "tougher sentences" are going to do to help? How is it "justice" to spend all the effort on "tougher sentences" (given that, among other things, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 "toughened up" sentences) instead of on educating and encouraging children to tell people abuse is happening? Or what about taking other actions to see that people who've committed offences against children continue to get support once they've left prison to help them to not re-offend? Or ... any number of other useful things one might do to protect children, instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction that "tougher sentences" will make it all OK.

Capital Punishment for Gun and Knife Crimes

The petition is entitled bring back capital punishment for gun and knife crime and the explanatory notes say

"the pain and the heartache of losing a loved one through these crimes is not acceptable"

I would say that the pain and heartbreak of losing a loved one by any crime is not acceptable, and indeed it's fairly unpleasant losing a loved one to anything, crime or not.

I would also say that capital punishment only causes more people to lose their loved ones - gun and knife criminals probably have mothers, fathers, lovers, siblings, etc., too ...

But I suppose one shouldn't be all that sarcastic; at a guess, the petitioner himself has lost someone to something like this. Which being assumed to be so, he's got to be permitted a little irrationality.

That doesn't make it a good idea, however. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Prison Overcrowding - Conscription

The petition is entitled solve overcrowding prison and the explanatory notes say

"As a solution to solve the overcrowding prisons i think that for given sentences such as between 0 and 6 years the convicts should have a choice of joining the armed forces and serving our country as this may solve the problem for the amount of people committing so called " lesser offences " ...sign this petition if you agree that this action should be taken!"

Lucky, lucky armed forces! I bet they'd love this idea ... Not!

I believe professional military personnel hate the idea of conscription (notwithstanding those who argue that conscripted armies, among other things, won the World Wars) - and frankly, I'm not sure I blame them. I can't imagine there's much worse than working with or training unwilling people to do what you do by choice - it's got to be worse than teaching in that respect. Horrible.

How much worse, then, is the idea of making criminals do it.

Being a woolly liberal I've never given much thought to the professional military - I'm not quite a pacifist; I do know that military forces are necessary because there are always idiots who'll try to fight, and consequently sometimes you need an army. And it's no good trying to create one out of small cloth just when those occasions arise or something - too late, then. So I don't advocate disarmament or anything. But still, thinking about the military isn't something I've done much of. Until I started reading Baen Books several of which (those by John Ringo, David Weber, David Drake, among others) have made me think about these uncomfortable subjects. I'm never going to be one of those strangely-patriotic jump-up-and-down-about-"our-boys" sorts of people, but I do have a substantial respect for those who, however incomprehensibly, serve society in the military.

I don't think that that service would be improved by making them deal with criminals as part of their forces. Ludicrous idea, frankly.

TV in Prisons

The petition is entitled ban television in prisons and the explanatory notes say

"Ban television in prisons, why are we making it so easy for criminals. Make the punishment a deterent to reoffending."

I wonder if the petitioner has ever spoken to a prisoner or ex-prisoner, or even read anything written by them, about the experience. Not that I've done the former, or all that much of the latter, but I don't get the impression that, even with TVs, prison is really the summer-camp that petitioners like this appear to think.

Then I wonder what people think prisoners would do instead of watching TV ... I don't know how true it is that some people go into prison an inept criminal and come out with all sorts of knowledge about how to practise their chosen vocation. On balance, though, it seems a little bit plausible and I can't see TV being worse ...

I suppose some people would respond that in that case solitary confinement is a better idea. Whereupon I imagine prisoners sitting there with nothing but their minds to occupy them, resenting the hell out of the state and of society for putting them there ... which doesn't, to my mind, make me think they'd be less likely to re-offend.

Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps I'm hopelessly naive. But ... I can't see how this would improve anything. And I don't believe the petitioner knows any more about the subject than I do.

Bearing Arms

Two very similar petitions.

The first petition is entitled Allow law abiding citizens of the UK to bear arms to protect themselves, their families and their property and the explanatory notes say

"Violent crime is growing and we want the right to protect ourselves. People feel totally unprotected by the British Government, it's Police force and it's laws. The people who have the guns right now are the criminals. Law abiding members of society should be able to protect themselves with a small firearm."

The second petition is entitled Ensure that people can protect their families, property and possessions against criminals with the force they feel is necessary and being treated as a victim rather than a criminal themselves simply for doing what is right and the explanatory notes say

"Allow people who are targeted by criminals, the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect. If more police cannot be recruited, normal human beings will have to use their own means of stopping these criminals."

The first point to make is that these two petitioners appear to want much the same thing. So why didn't they do a simple search to avoid duplication?

The second point is to ask whether they have examined the violent crime statistics for places where "bearing arms" is permitted and where people are allowed to "defend" or "protect" themselves. I rather assume they have not, since they do not bear out that violent crime happens less where people can "protect" themselves, or bear arms.

Modern Pillories

The petition is entitled Introduce Perspex Cases (Modern Pillories) within troubled communities instead of Asbo's and the explanatory notes say

"Display minor criminals and anti-social people in a perspex case (modern version of stocks or pillories)within the community they have offended in. Let it be safe, so they cannot be seriously harmed; but just humiliated in front of their peers. If they have harrassed an old couple - for example - let that old couple be the first to throw wet sponges at them (provided by the council/cheaper than a night in the cells). A security guard could be on site to prevent damage to the case and the person inside it. It will work better than Asbo's as no-one will want it repeated! Hard to see the acclaimed cudos on this one."

This petition makes my liberal principles flinch again but then I think - no, hang on - why do I think this would be a breach of human rights or some such thing? Why do I think it's a bad idea?

I suppose one has to raise the question of what a sentence is for: punishment, rehabilitation, deterrence, etc. Broadly speaking the concept of "punishment" bothers me somehow; I know this is unrealistic and unreasonable so I tend to just not think too hard about it. Certainly something like this pillorying is going to serve no rehabilitative purpose (well, I can't see how it can, anyway) - but then, the theory is that ASBOs and such aren't really for the easily-rehabilitated. And the petitioner may be on to something as far as deterrence goes.

It's probably madness. It sounds like some kind of dreadful reversion to the middle ages. And yet ... it's a curious idea ...

Sedition

The petition is entitled advise Her Majesty The Queen to enact, through Order-in-Council, that the public or parliamentary advocacy of the dissolution of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the advocacy of a republican form of government for all or part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, be a criminal offence to be classed as Sedition; and that such Sedition by individuals be punishable by fine or imprisonment, and their disqualification from sitting or standing as a Member of both Upper and Lower Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and that legal entities found guilty of the same be liable to fine and the withholding of Public Monies otherwise due and the explanatory notes say

"The United Kingdom's existence is under threat, not from terrorists or climate change, but from those within this country who - for their own political grandeur, prejudice or simple disloyalty to the generations who have built, and died for, this great nation of ours - wish to either see the end of the Constitutional Monarchy which binds this country together, or the Balkanization of the UK into petty, squabbling statelets beholden to the EU. We must stop them, and prevent them using and abusing our tolerance, freedom of speech, and public money, in and out of Parliament."

On the one hand, it's nice to see a petition with accurate spelling and grammar. On the other, it's text so dense it took me three readings to work out what on earth the petitioner's trying to say. Someone call the Plain English Campaign!

What the petitioner wants is for it to be illegal to either advocate independence for any bits of the UK, or to advocate republican rule of any part of the UK. And for this putative crime - "sedition" - to be punishable either by fining or imprisonment, and by banning someone convicted of the crime from being either an MP or a member of the House of Lords.

This is because the petitioner thinks that the greatest threat to the UK comes from those who want a republican government for the UK, or want to split the UK into bits. This is a rather cyclic explanation; s/he doesn't say why s/he thinks this so enormous a threat, he just says that it is.

S/he considers these advocates to - er - be abusing our tolerance and our freedom of speech. Abusing freedom of speech. Because they're such a terrible threat.

I think I actually only know one person who advocates - in this case - Scottish independence. And I'm not actually sure he's real; he's a poster on the Guardian Talk Boards and I have some substantial reason for believing the personality's faked. I don't think I know any Republicans, in the sense of being people who advocate tearing down the monarchy. A few people who dislike it on principle, but no one who actually thinks destroying it would be productive.

Nor have I heard news reports talking about this terrible threat to our existence. In short, I have absolutely no idea why the petitioner's so worried about it. S/he makes the point twice that it is in her/his opinion particularly reprehensible to have anyone in parliament advocating these things. I suppose there might be some backbench MP putting private member's bills about something, or some such?

On the other hand, at least s/he can write precise (if dense) prose.

Prison Waiting Lists

The petition is entitled Introduce Prison Waiting lists for convicted ciminals and the explanatory notes say

"Prison overcrowding should be regarded as a temporary measure to be addressed through investment in prisons. Existing Prisoners should not be released early and the appropriate sentence should always bee given and not downgraded simply because of a shortfall in prison spaces. Where the offence warrants a prison term, and where appropriate, the offender should be released into the community until such time as a cell is available for them. It is not always necessary that sentence is carried out immediately. It works for the NHS, it can work for prisons."

This is a fascinating idea. Notwithstanding my liberal views (I suspect prison of being pointless as a punishment and not worth much as a deterrent; I also am unconvinced that justice involves punishment anyway; in short, the value of prison is only to keep away from society those who are likely to re-offend against it) which I know the world doesn't share - why not?

OK, clearly you are going to have a problem keeping tabs on the convicted so that they don't escape and disappear before their sentences come up. But given tagging and modern technology I don't think that's insoluble. Clearly there's also the risk of their re-offending - but again, tagging, perhaps, could solve this. There's ways around it, anyway.

Somewhere along the line this seems to me strangely plausible. Mad, in many respects, and yet ... plausible.

Severe Punishments for Deterrence

The petition is entitled Empower the Courts to (at their discretion) impose exemplary "deterrent" sentences, including the death penalty, for crimes of premeditated murder, physical violence, drug-trafficking and child abuse and the explanatory notes say

"For too long, our career politicians, lawyers and liberal apologists for criminal behaviour appear to have favoured the "so-called rights" of criminals rather than the "real rights" of their unfortunate victims. If the United Kingdom were to introduce sentences of "real" deterrence including the death penalty where appropriate, I am certain that we would see an instant and real reduction in crime figures (without the need for this "out of touch with the real world" Government to massage / spin the figures as they are so apt to do). I hope you will agree that, whilst this will certainly upset the tax-payer funded social engineers of our society, my proposal does represent an ample measure of plain common sense which will strike a chord with ordinary, hard working and law abiding people. If you agree, do please add your name to this petition. Thank you."

I'm glad to say that as yet it seeems not to be striking all that profound a chord with anybody, since so far there are only 7 signatories. However.

The petitioner has phrased the petition oddly: since most sentences are imposed at "the courts' discretion" (as I understand it, anyway) he could more simply have petitioned the prime minister to introduce more punitive measures, including capital punishment, or something else simple, for the various crimes to which he takes particular exception.

Then we get on to the rant and ramble of his explanatory notes. Evidence we lack, for his claim that the "so-called rights of criminals" being favoured over the "real rights" of their victims, as far as I'm aware.

The petitioner believes in the "deterrence" effect of capital and other severe punishments, in the face of great swathes of international evidence that the death penalty, at least, has no deterrent effect. Of course, that's because he believes that the evidence is "massaged" and "spun" by "the Government", presumably for shadowy or liberal reasons of their own.

I wonder who on earth he thinks the "tax-payer funded social engineers of our society" are?

False Rape Accusations

The petition is entitled sentence those found guilty of making false rape allegations to a ten year jail term plus loss of anonymity and the explanatory notes say

"Police that have erroneous prosecuted should be found guilty of incompetence and dismissed. Males accused should be granted anonymity.

False accusations of rape are a horrible thing, can ruin lives, and certainly should be punished. But this is not the way of doing it.

Admittedly the petitioner seems to be implying a separate trial for a woman whose accusation of rape has failed, rather than some kind of automatic you-made-the-accusation-he-was-found-not-guilty-therefore-we-imprison-you thing which is how I first read the petition. But I still fear that the effect of this legislation would be to make women more reluctant to accuse their rapists. After all, it so often comes down to her word against his; you can't feel confident that you can prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that you've been raped. And if you don't, my Gods, you're suddenly threatened with imprisonment! I'm not sure I'd have the courage to go through with a prosecution, with that hanging over me.

Furthermore, I don't like the implication that the police should be extra-careful of evidence in rape cases. To my way of thinking, if a police officer's pushed for a prosecution erroneously, s/he should already be being charged and/or disciplined. I don't think rape cases should be special. Actually, in a way, that goes for an accuser, too - someone whose accusation of rape has led to a not-guilty verdict may, in the right circumstances, already be charged with wasting police time and so on, may s/he not? So why extra legislation?

The only thing I do agree with is the idea of anonymity for the accused. I don't see any reason not to provide that protection; it won't benefit the guilty to be thus protected, and it will protect the innocent.

Child and Anti-Police Crime

The petition is entitled consider bringing in tougher penalties for crimes committed against children and police and the explanatory notes say

"Persons who commit crimes against children should if found guilty spend a minimum of 18 years in prison and those found guilty of murder/manslaughter of children they should be given life with no parole and no release from prison. There should also be more done to protect our police by the courts of this land by giving out longer sentences to those who insult, assualt and even murder our police, it is time the government started to listen to the people of this country of what they want, and less heed to the do-gooders."

The explanatory notes seem to fall into three sections: the bit that worries about kids, the bit that worries about the police, and the bit that starts frothing about do-gooders.

Indeed, the petition feels like two separate concerns jammed together for no particular reason. I'm not as such arguing with either half (though I find myself wondering whether there are many criminals who commit "crimes against children" who really deserve a sentence of more than 18 years in prison, and whether it can really be justified for manslaughter to ever carry such a high penalty), I just wonder why the two are being presented together.

And then - how can it possibly be that "do-gooder" is an insult, a thing to be despised, a thing not to be heeded. Someone who does, or wishes to do, good. An insult. There's something wrong there. OK, OK, it has implications of "naive" and possibly also "ineffectual". But that in itself is a shame.

Weekend Prisons

The petition is entitled Weekend Prisons and Holidays and the explanatory notes say

"Prisons are full often with people who should not be in prison full time. We need to look at alternatives to full time prisons. We would like to see the introduction of Weekend and bank holiday prison for thos in employment and in full time education. If a person has committed an offence and it is proven he/she are in full time employment it would be better for the country if they only attended prison in their time off i.e weekends and Bank holidays. This would keep those in employment still in the work force and earning money to look after their families and also to pay taxes. These in education would be monitored to ensure they were not abusing the system and if they were they would then be sent to a main prison."

This petition raises some interesting questions, really, about the purpose of prison. If it's intended as punishment, perhaps this theory might work. If, on the other hand, it's about protecting society from possible re-offending, then ... well ... this doesn't look so clever.

I wonder how many of the weekend-imprisoned would manage to actually remain in employment? If I were an employer of one of them I'd probably be looking hard for a reason to sack them.

Time for a new category/tag: Curious ideas. Mad, but curious, you understand. Thought-provoking.

Corporal and Capital Punishment

The petition is entitled bring back the cane in schools and capital punistment for criminals as there is no discipline in this country any more and it will only get worse and the explanatory notes say

"The cane would stop the out of control kids and maybe cut crime in the future it's better than no discipline what so ever. Why do we keep people in person who will never change and keep causing good people pain and make them scared to go out at night."

There is a marvellous quote I'm thinking of:

"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"

It is, of course, a quote from Plato. You know, the Greek philosopher from around 400BC. Apparently there's vast quantities of similar quotes in early Roman literature, too.