Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits.

Refutations Addressed.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.Quote [1] – “Countries with the most generous welfare systems have the lowest proportions of people in prison, and the lowest rates of crime generally.”From looking at this which is research done by Professor David Downes and Dr Kristine Hansen of London School of Economics which took a brief overview of 18 countries we can see that the correlation between prison rates and crime rates in countries with relatively low welfare spending was considerably higher, whereas those who put more financial backing into the welfare system generally have not only a lower prison rate but a lower crime rate in general, the top eight having by far the safest society. This points at the link again that by avoiding impoverished areas crime rates will be lower across the board. [1]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.I must thank my opponent for agreeing that the purpose of gang membership is to be a primary source of income, one of which is to take advantage of the welfare system Great Britain currently has in place. And I would argue that it would just increase gang activity to make up for the lost income or the gangs becoming more organized. However let me play with the idea his premise is true that with reduced income gang members would be forced to legitimate jobs. The Job Market is in a state of disarray [2] [3] [4], the jobs are not there to go around which would leave the gangs with the only option of Criminality or increased presence. So the removal of financial aid, would do nothing but encourage the Gang system.However, by committing the crimes that they have committed, by ruining their society, they have removed themselves from society.A lot of the perpetrators of crime have had troubled backgrounds, and remain in troubled locations, they may be addicts, or homeless, they may have been abused in childhood which all in turn leads to crime. If we remove them from the society and put them outside the “Protection and aid” as my opponent says, you wave all responsibility to look after them, put them through rehabilitation, and educate them and the like. This creates a “Us” and “Them” belief system which would separate the classes and create more content between the classes, which in turn increases crime against the middle class.Rebuttals to Opponent PositionIf 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?In a Utopian society I would agree with this statement, However we live in reality, and it’s not about what is “Fair” and what is not. It’s about trying to reduce the cost of society towards these people. If we was to make them destitute or below the poverty line then the cost of the middle classes would increase through Police presence required, Damages incurred from increased theft, the cost of the court system plus the cost of any imprisonment or court sanction. So in essence not only would we have an increased level of Victims, but we would have an increased level of public spending, which in turn would increase tax rates and/or deepen cuts. So the answer is a society that tries to keep its costs down, whilst improving the quality of life in the society as a whole.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.Again I point to the previous argument where the society as a whole does not have enough jobs to go around. On top of that employers are wary at best to employ criminals with unspent convictions and in some sectors criminals with spent convictions. Another thing to note is that Criminals have a lower rate of education which shuts the door on many jobs that already exist in the market. “More than 50% of male offenders and 71% of female offenders have no qualifications. Nearly half have literacy skills at or below level 1 and 65% have numeracy skills at or below level 1.” [5] So to remove all financial aid and to then say “Go get Jobs or become destitute” Would be counter productive.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.This is a repeat of the previous argument but it does address “What stops them from returning to crime” I could go in to how to reform the welfare system so that they are still paid and also would encourage work, however that is not the purpose of this debate, the purpose is weather they should have the financial benefits removed in its entirety.[1]http://labour-uncut.co.uk...[2] http://www.metro.co.uk...[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[4] http://www.personneltoday.com...[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk...