Once "criminals" have a bright future and a job, they probably won't be criminals any more. I think that's a good thing for everyone involved.
I say "criminals" not to imply that what these people do isn't criminal (it is), but because dividing the world into criminals and good law abiding citizens is a false dichotomy. Normal people sometimes do criminal things and criminals sometimes to things that are good.
Additionally, by applying only the label "criminal" to certain people, you're ignoring that these are human beings with lives and dreams and ideas and problems and families, who have reasons for the things they do. They may be good reasons, they might not be, but to disregard them altogether is a mistake.
At the same time, you're implying that crime is a problem that either cannot be solved or can be solved by jailtime and harsh sentencing. Neither of these implications are true.
I never said that criminals should be offered a bright future and a job.
Your reply sidesteps my question.
You talk about a crappy underclass, thugs and criminal gangs: Why is there a crappy underclass? Why are there thugs and criminal gangs? Why is there a group of people that thinks it's okay to loot? What is the reason that this group exists, what is the _underlying_cause_ for this?
I think your description of them says a lot about your arguments nature.
I mean of course the parent are to blame, but since they too belong to what you describe as underclass they simply do not have the mental surplus.
If you have kids you will know how hard it can be to control their whereabouts.
And as far as I can se, no one is claiming it's an excuse. It's an explanation. You can then as you do choose to disregard it or you could perhaps try and look at the root cause and accept that social status and income do have an effect.
There were also some examples of good parenting - one chap handed himself in to police because his mother recognised him on television and forced him to give himself up.
