Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits.

I will first address my opponent's arguments, then move onto my own. I the three definitions put forth by my opponent. Rebuttal"The problem with this is that it would be counter productive, these people who become desperate and would have nothing to lose, it would increase the likelihood of them committing crime such as theft, mugging, and burglary to name a few. This would then create yet more victims and raise crime levels without benefiting the society in any way. "Crimes are committed every day in every country around the world. Criminals have not been shown to be deterred by the possible loss of welfare, and welfarism has even been linked to increasing crime (1). Removing benefits from those who have committed such crimes would encourage them to find jobs, becoming productive members of society. "The second thing to look at is what are the reasons behind gang culture and how does it come about. To begin with we know from David Cameron (2) that lack of fathers can cause this as people begin to look towards the gang as their father in a sense. Another reason is through poverty as people come together as a collective to better their chance of survival. If this really is the case we would only be reinforcing gang culture by removing income from these individuals. "Lack of fathers is not relevant to this debate. Gangs are a primary source of income for their members, but many of these gang members are also eligible for social welfare. Removing social welfare from them would, in turn, reduce the income of gang members, making it harder to live as a member of a gang. With reduced income, gang members would be forced to find legitimate, paying jobs. (2)"The other point here is that Criminals may be immoral but from a legislature standpoint are still humans which under the Human Rights Act (1998) (3) Which gives them the right to life which means their necessities fulfilled. "Criminals are humans, and are thus protected by the law. However, by committing the crimes that they have committed, by ruining their society, they have removed themselves from society. This removes them from the purview of society's protection. This is an important distinction. They are protected by the law, but not society. The have the right to be treated humanely, and to be given a fair trial. If they are found guilty, however, they cannot truly call themselves members of society, for they have removed themselves from it, and so they should not be entitled to society's protection and aid. ArgumentsSociety should not be forced to aid and protect those who have worked to undo that very same society. If a man burns down your house, you should not be required to invite him back in for tea. If a woman smashes your car, you should not be required to give her a ride. These rioters have burned, smashed, looted, and destroyed everything in sight. They have done immense damage to society, and the people within it. Why, then, should society be required to give them money? These benefits would be payed from the taxes of those whose property has been destroyed. If these criminals continue to accrue benefits, their victims will be helping to pay. In what society is it fair for the victim to pay the criminal? Social welfare has encouraged these crimes. Social welfare has allowed the perpetrators of these crimes to become unproductive members of society, who eventually turned against it (3). If we cut off this societal income, these criminals will be required to find jobs. They can become productive members of society. Society cannot be expected to continue to foot the bill for these criminals, many of whom have contributed nothing to society. These criminals should be expected to pay their debt to society in full, not to continue taking from it. Society is presented with a choice. If benefits continue to flow to the perpetrators of these violent crimes, if the status quo is maintained, there is a chance that these events will repeat themselves. Yes, the guilty criminals will face legal punishment, but once that is finished they can go back to their lives as usual, as they were, with no change. Prisons have been shown not to deter crime (4), so what, then, stops them from returning to crime? If benefits are cut off, however, they will be forced to change their lives. They will not be able to survive on society's coattails any longer, and will be forced to become productive members of society. Moreover, society will not be forced to support those who have destroyed their homes and livelihoods. Let us bring about a real change, let us reform these criminals. (1) . http://www.telegraph.co.uk...(2) . http://anthonylawlor.ie...(3) . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...(4) . http://www.slate.com...