Programs and stuff (especially when United and unproven because no one is game enough to try) means less budget surplus (because that’s the most important election point ever) and jails and detention centres already exist? 😖
When we last did a tour of Fremantle Prison a hundred million years ago I’m pretty sure the guides said back in the day they had kids as young as 9 in there so if that’s accurate it’s gone up to 10 😵
Yet programs are proven, just in other countries. Increase the age of detention and that might save enough to move that money to support and diversion. If they actually thought about it, that would be a positive promise to put in an election campaign, but they probably couldn't see that, because these kids are nothing other than a nuisance to them, so why would they envision anyone else felt any different?
So if it's taken us a couple of hundred years to increase to a minimum age of 10, we might have another 100 to get to 11.
But it's not proven HERE and we're different?
I'm currently dizzy from the amount of eye rolling I've been doing, also you need to imagine me saying so much of this stuff with a really ditzy rising inflection XD
Actually it might be provable at least locally if someone wanted to crunch numbers (I know a few of the PCYCs run support/diversion type programs here) but yes what you said.
Eye rolling to be avoided if you want to avoid dizzy spells. 😆 Lesson learnt.
That's interesting that there are some support/diversion programs. I wonder what the locations are on them. Are they only run in the slightly better off areas or areas nearer to the city where there's an actual incentive to try and improve crime rates, while the country areas are just ignored? 🤔
We're in a generally lower socioeconomic area doing its utmost to gentrify, not sure what that qualifies as x_x