Tuesday 8th September 2015, at 7.00pm

Birmingham Medical Institute, 36 Harborne Road, Birmingham, West Midlands B15 3AF

The Home Office’s PREVENT anti-terrorism strategy has been adapted to the area of serious and organised crime. Under this initiative, public services will intervene in cases where individuals are observed to be at risk of perpetrating violent crime, raising concerns about confidentiality and the use of public budgets for information gathering.

Even more problematically, the strategy applies the same measures to individuals who simply have a need that makes them vulnerable to the possibility of perpetrating violent crime. 

Is violent crime inevitable? Surely individuals can make their own choice about whether or not to perpetrate violent crime. Or can they? Maybe the ability to take responsibility for that choice is hindered by a whole range of vulnerability factors that limit their capacity to respond to reason in certain circumstances.

To help unpick this issue, the debate will imagine a number of contemporary Peaky Blinders characters:

Peaky Blinder A knows of few people in his family and social circles who make a lawful and peaceful living.

Peaky Blinder B has financial difficulties.

Peaky Blinder C is dependent on crack cocaine, alcohol and cannabis, experiences psychotic symptoms, and has an anti-social personality disorder.

Peaky Blinder D has limited skills and knowledge to make a living lawfully.

If public servants intervene with any of these Peaky Blinders, can they strengthen or limit choice and responsibility? And would those interventions hold a realistic chance of preventing an act of violent crime?

This debate is a collaboration between Birmingham Salon and the Birmingham Medical Institute.

The debate is chaired by Jonathan Hurlow.

Yvonne Mosquito - Deputy Police Commissioner

Sean Russell - Chief Inspector, and West Midlands Policing Lead for Prevention of Violence and Mental Health

Dr Hanna Pickard - Reader in Philosophy, University of Birmingham