Currently, the UK enforces anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) which tell an individual over 10 years old how they must not behave. Examples of anti-social behaviour include: arson, begging, dangerous driving, defecating/urinating in public, disturbing the peace, dogging, drug use, drunken behaviour, fare evasion, homophobia, intimidation, littering, loitering, noise pollution, racism, rioting, rudeness, smoking in public places, spitting, stealing, mugging, vandalism, and graffiti. Penalties for individuals proven to behave antisocially include fines, being banned from certain locations, and/or spending time with people who are known as trouble-makers for at least two years.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Constituency
City
Parish
Response rates from 252k UK voters.
84% Yes |
16% No |
59% Yes |
16% No |
22% Yes, but increase penalties so offenders take them more seriously |
|
3% Yes, ASBOs deter troublemakers from becoming criminals |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 252k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 252k UK voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from UK voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@5534JYN4yrs4Y
Good citizenship should be part of the national curriculum by law. Where this proves inadequate, troublemakers, especially persistent ones, should be sent to secure re'education centres where they will be subject to a 'carrot and stick' type of system.
@9NHK8WD 7mos7MO
Yes but add supports and offer services to reduce offending and antisocial behaviour as it is almost always a result of r some form of trauma
@9PM4QJF6mos6MO
There's a grey area that's overlooked here. If a person is urinating publicly because the public toilets cost money, charging a person for a basic human function, then they shouldn't be punished - it's not their fault they didn't have the change for the toilet, or there wasn't one available. People can't just NOT need urinate, because their councils rules (charging for urination or not providing the accessibility to) put them in a precarious position. That shouldn't be treated in the same light as abusing a person for their sexual affinity, or setting fire to a bin.
@9NTVFS67mos7MO
I believe this should be changed to look at why people may be acting this way. Provide support rather than punishment.
@9PQ58QY6mos6MO
Yes but link to advice, mentoring, support and assistance in terms of education, employment or training and any personal, family or social issues that may have impacted behaviour
@9W2G68Q3mos3MO
Yes, but some are unreasonable or vague (disturbing the peace, drug use, drunken behaviour, homophobia, loitering, racism, rudeness).
@9Q9WPPP6mos6MO
Yes, but remove some of the "crimes" such as begging, drug use, and loitering as these might target those most vulnerable.
@9Q953CS6mos6MO
They should be used as initially intended. True to form, government and NGOs use them as they see fit, misapplying laws to further curb citizen rights and freedoms
Join in on the most popular conversations.
