“But should left-liberals think about re-evaluating this approach?”

Simple answer, no.

Agreed with Lee, this one is simple: if we want to remain left-liberals we shouldn’t even be considering this.

@ comments 1 & 2: Well, that’s that, then. Debate over. Who needs intelligent, well thought out discussion anyway?

Most sensible suggestion I’ve read on LibCon. The point is that punishment by its nature involves removal of rights. It may just be that we need to spell out a bit more fully which ones are to be forfeit.

Lee, Dan: a word of principled debate might make your points rather better – “we don’t think like that round here” is a bit…parochial. Do you think that imprisoning people is wrong because it takes away their freedom of movement and association?

3. There’s no debate to be had. Criminals don’t deserve any less rights than anyone else, aside from obvious privacy and freedom restrictions. But hey, let’s pick out some points that instantly make any of these “considerations” illiberal…

I once had a client in Belmarsh who was denied the opportunity to attend the county court regarding a possession application on his council flat due to non payment of rent. He smashed a food tray into the face of a prison guard. The governor promptly agreed to allow him to attend the court.

This wouldn’t have happened if the governor had allowed him his rights, this sentence alone goes to show how restricting peoples rights does not quell their criminal urges nor their anger, if anything it does the reverse.

So it’s not a question of whether the security guard has a right to give the thief a clip around the ear; he doesn’t, but it is a question of whether the thief has the right to be a victim of crime. In this argument, he doesn’t. Therefore no crime happened since you can’t have a crime without having a victim.

Except he’s not less of a victim. There is no reason for violent conflict in the apprehension or punishment of an individual, and as such there is no reason to lessen the “victimhood” of anyone for their circumstances, any liberal that believes otherwise is fooling themselves as to their political ideologies. Two wrongs don’t make a right, etc, etc.

A client of mine is currently in Wandsworth prison recently asked me if he and his mates could get compensation from the government over a highly publicised lost data disc with their personal details on it. Since there seemed to be no damage I took the view that they had no case.

And so where is the problem? If there WAS a case would you still not have took it because they’re criminals? If they were to suffer, especially in this instance where what they suffer from is NOTHING to do with their crime, why should we turn a blind eye because they are law breakers?

I can’t remember the quote, but someone said something along the lines of we should be judged by how we treat our enemies. It’s probably biblical, I dunno.

If you offer yourself up as a pushover, you’ll be treated as a push-over; if you demand respect, you’ll be accorded respect and that applies to yourself as a person, or to society as an institution.

Meanwhile, 50 years later from the land Dan is living in with belt straps and a firm hand…

Criminals are only incarcerated for so long (and that length isn’t necessarily totally predictable by governors and law keepers). Their liberties are restricted appropriately, they serve their time, they’re meant to be rehabilitated, and then they are free. If we restrict their future freedom by current actions of eroding their rights then we are not liberal. If we don’t let the prisoner that killed someone get the healthcare they need, for example, and as such have a shortened lifespan post-sentence and post-rehabilitation then we have infringed on a free persons liberty too far.

So…to repeat my early short version of this, no, we shouldn’t consider it.

“Do you think that imprisoning people is wrong because it takes away their freedom of movement and association?”

We imprison people to protect the rights of the rest of the public. We limit their privacy to protect other inmates, though obviously a good level of privacy is still afforded.

Beyond this what other reason is there for limiting rights beyond vindictiveness?

I’m interested in more detail about Dan McCurry’s approach. Is there a scale of seriousness and we disable more rights the higher up we go? For example, he says a thief wouldn’t be able to complain if he was clipped round the ear while engaged in theft. How serious would the assault need to be in order for the criminal to be able to complain?

What about a rapist or murderer who is already in prison? Would Dan McCurry turn a blind eye to them being beaten up, perhaps even killed, by other inmates?

The loss or reduction of rights could affect healthcare, benefits, housing, legal advice as well as the rule of law.

Please define “the rule of law”, because I can’t see how it’s relevant.

We imprison people to protect the rights of the rest of the public. We limit their privacy to protect other inmates, though obviously a good level of privacy is still afforded. Beyond this what other reason is there for limiting rights beyond vindictiveness?

That is where we differ Lee. The reason is justice and if it not seen to be done then we have no law only a waste collection service. If my property or family are attacked I will respond . Who are you , and who is “society” to forgive the murder of another’s child ? They have no right
If the law can be relied on to nothing but spend more of my money on sending the perp on self discovery trips to S America then I will have to do it myself, , with a gun if necessary. This is vital point in areas where lawlessness is always close , where they still say two good men makes a good area. You must not be fooled into thinking anarchy is far away , we see everyday how close it is .
I agree with the thrust of this .Criminals should not have any rights except those specifically allowed them . Subjects of her majesty should have all rights except those specifically prescribed .The ‘human rights act’ is a Lawyers piggy bank and does nothing useful for the English.

( The Liberals Party had some rather good ideas about restorative justice which I would like to see followed up by the way they are not all as immoral as the demonic Lee Griffin )

This argument strikes me as very confused, eliding as it does human rights and the HRA with entitlement to benefits, and practice with anecdotes..

I’ll say straight off the bat that I don’t have any objection on principle to stopping benefits for criminals – if they are actively harming society by breaking the law then it seems fair that they should not benefit from society’s protection. There’s no legal reason why this couldn’t be done, since the European Convention on Human Rights is primarily concerned with arbitrary and/or flagrantly excessive punishment; so long as punishments are coded in law and equally applied, they’re fair game. OTOH, I can also tell you that the direct result will be an increase in recidivism, already appallingly high, for reasons that should be all too obvious.

That said, the suggestions re: docking entitlements to healthcare and turning a blind eye to “a clip round the ear” are astonishingly bad ideas, handing free licence to petty officials and poorly-paid security staff. I’m sure that most people, left or right, understand that giving people that kind of authority is going to have bad results in short order, and I’m surprised to read this at a site with “Liberal” in the title.

It’s a recipe for disaster, and those who disagree should consider the thousands of new crimes the current government have created in the last decade and imagine the myriad ways in which future governments might create whole new classes of criminals and the fiendish punishments they could devise to please the tabloids. This “sliding scale of rights” would almost certainly be used to punish not just criminals, but also people society finds offensive and small, unpopular-but-law-abiding groups. British governments have a very bad record on harrassing unpopular groups, as a glance at the twentieth century would show.

(Incidentally, anyone who believes that the counterargument “But we will draw up laws against that kind of thing happening” has more faith in human nature than I do.)

It seems to me that you don’t have a terribly good grasp of what rights are or what the HRA does. 95% of the criticisms of the HRA I’ve read have been outright nonsense, generally focusing on some criminal somewhere who claims he has the right to a car full of marmalade or some such – the fact that he has no chance of even serious hearing for such a case is conveniently omitted.

The other criticisms stem from the HUMAN RIGHTS OUTRAGE school, and tend to focus on successful cases in which the European Convention on Human Rights has been used in support. The Scottish slopping out prison cases, for instance, were found to be breaches of the common law; further, they found that ministers were repeatedly warned that conditions were unacceptable over a long period – it was a case of wilful neglect of persons in the custody of the state, and although the court found a breach of the right not to be subject to degrading treatment (like having a man shit in a cup next to your head in a room with no ventilation, for instance, although there was much more to it than that) it was established Scottish case law that decided the day.

In short, the fact that a bunch of lags sit about scheming on ways to scam the taxpayer via the HRA says a lot more about the accepted myths of British society than it does about our legal system, and the fact you’re prepared to legislate on this basis suggests you haven’t really thought the issue through.

Finally (you’ll be glad to hear), if we’re going to see more of this kind of thing around these parts, perhaps Sunny could change the title to Liberal Conspiracy – Now With Extra Lions!

“The Liberals Party had some rather good ideas about restorative justice which I would like to see followed up by the way they are not all as immoral as the demonic Lee Griffin”

Restorative justice makes a lot of sense, true, as it doesn’t limit the rights or liberties of the criminal while at the same time rebalancing the “justice” felt is delivered by the victim or their family/friends. The reason it makes a lot of sense is it doesn’t, as the Tories and Labour party would wish, let partial and emotional relatives and victims have a say in sentencing. Objective sentencing, victim-consulted rehabilitation, it’s the only liberal way forward.

I think people like Dan are raising this question because many people do not feel punishment is adequate. When the death penalty was removed, the public was told the life sentence would mean life. Now it would appear those who commit murder can be on the streets after 15 years. The recent case in Liverpool with the young boy being shot , the murderer has only received 8 years. Rapists can be on the streets after 5-6 years. If rapists received a minmum sentence of 20 years with no parol and murderers received a life sentence and that hard labour was included in the punishment, then I think people would a lot more happy. Many people consider the left liberal middle class have more concern for the criminals than the families of the victims. If we have a depression combined with a massive rise in crime and a belief by the majority of the honest public that criminals are being let off too lightly , then we could see widespread vigilante justice. lee Griffin , what concerns me with your argument; though it may be ideal in an ideal World , the saying ” The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

Beyond this what other reason is there for limiting rights beyond vindictiveness

Because any set of rights that is applicable in jail is worthless to anyone outside jail.

The essence of progress is making things better: raising wages, working conditions, control over lives, freedom of choice, while staying within the framework of a more or less capitalist economy.

Since about the 19C, the rhetorical tactic used for this by the liberal left has been to claim desired improvements as universal rights, and enact laws against denying those rights. So you have right to vote, right to a fair trial, right to health care, right to strike, right to work, maybe a right to privacy, and so on. Every social problem can be solved by finding a right that the people causing the problem are denying, and preventing them from denying it.

While improving life in jails may well be desirable, the set of appropriate improvements is going to be different from the set of improvements that apply to the general public. For example, jails have a primitive command-socialist economy: all food, accommodation health care and education is provided by the State. The rights that would sustainably improve that situation are going to be completely different from the rights that would improve the situation of the general population. Progess in one might make the other worse, problems in one might prevent progress in the other.

“I think people like Dan are raising this question because many people do not feel punishment is adequate.”

Well then, let’s just reinstate the fucking death penalty and let the mob’s bloodlust be satiated, no?

“Progess in one might make the other worse, problems in one might prevent progress in the other.”

Any proof of this other than wild hypotheticals?

“If we have a depression combined with a massive rise in crime and a belief by the majority of the honest public that criminals are being let off too lightly , then we could see widespread vigilante justice.”

I’ve never even mentioned that I believe sentencing may be correct or not. Indeed in the past I believe I’ve said that a thief that is never going to stop being a criminal should serve a longer sentence than a murderer who is rehabilitated early. The trouble is the general and emotional public (and of course victims have every right to be emotional, that doesn’t make their analysis right) don’t know what is fair.

Raise that rapists sentence to 20 years, you’ll then only see arguments that 20 years isn’t enough. These arguments have no limits because the public, outraged as they are, would rather that criminals are just locked up and left to rot when channeling those emotions. That’s why those arguments shouldn’t be listened to, as harsh as that may seem.

Justice does have to be seen to be done, and restorative measures could go a long way to dealing with this, and some cases of sentencing seeming disproportionate could certainly be addressed. Beyond this I believe there needs to be more management of public relations when it comes to ex offenders and their rehabilitation.

Of course people are resistant to this, they believe all criminals are criminals for life, or there abouts, and in doing so…by calling for less rights for criminals…create exactly the kind of conditions that allow reoffending to increase. Though it must be said that imprisoning so many more petty criminals doesn’t help reoffending rates, but again the public takes this high level of reoffending to mean murderers and such are going back out and doing it again, when in reality it is shop lifters stealing another bottle of vodka.

Any proof of this other than wild hypotheticals?

Criminals should have criminal-oriented rights. The best existing example is the right to have convictions spent, which is worthless to a non-criminal, and potentially conflicts with several general civil rights such as freedom of speech. But it is generally judged vital to allow rehabilitation and rejoining society.

One potential right that is currently causing political conflict is the right to apply for a UK-based job under UK terms and conditions. That right would be hard to argue as appropriate to grant to prisoners – it would be farcical to require employees set up arrangements for prisoners to work remotely from their cell, the way they might build a disabled access ramp

If you limit the set of civil rights to those a prisoner can have, then those rights will either be meaningless or paltry.

Yes yes, Soru, but how does improving the rights of prisoners, in terms of their own situation and while considering the rights of the public, negatively affect the rights of the rest of the public?

Lee, I agree with everything you say – and I would go further.

Our prison are full of illiterate, innumerate alcholics/addicts. At present, we are happy to let them out when they’ve done their time in the same state that they went in. This achieves nothing, except that they can’t commit any more crimes while they’re inside. I would be perfectly happy with handing down notional long sentences to such people even for minor offences with the provision for them to be let out on licence once they were skilled up and had overcome their chemical dependency* and for them to apply to have the rest of their sentence quashed once they had lived honestly and usefully on the outside for a reasonable period of time.

And this question of “concern for the families of victims” needs to be banged on the head too. Do those who go on about this really believe that a criminal should serve a longer sentence if the victim (or their next of kin, in the case of murder) has a vindictive, bengeful attitude than if they have a forgiving one? Because that is what it boils down to. It’s actually saying that anger is a moral good – do these people actually think that those victims who practice forgiveness are in some way contributing to crime? Perhaps they do.

*At the very least there should be daily AA/NA meetings in all our jails.

[18] “vengeful” not “bengeful” of course….

“I would be perfectly happy with handing down notional long sentences to such people even for minor offences with the provision for them to be let out on licence once they were skilled up and had overcome their chemical dependency* and for them to apply to have the rest of their sentence quashed once they had lived honestly and usefully on the outside for a reasonable period of time.”

As you’d guess, I agree with this kind of thinking…and it ties in very usefully with this article because without the rights being afforded to criminals that are afforded to others (on the case of healthcare, housing, etc) when those people are released if they are faced with the prospect of non-employment, no accommodation, no money…can we be surprised they may reoffend? Controversial as it may be there would be a strong case to be made for ex-cons to get priority to community housing (assuming they haven’t got support for keeping their current house, I won’t even go in to the associative negative affects of less rights for criminals on their immediate family and how that affects THEIR likelihood to become criminal) and for criminal records (except in some sensitive fields) to be withheld from employers.

Dan’s post seems to be a meditation on “what approach to criminal justice would follow logically from my philosophical principles”. Personally, I’m not in favour of limiting anyone’s freedom or equality in the eyes of the state just because it seems logical according to someone else’s philosophical viewpoint. There has to be a good, practical reason for it.

Lee Griffin . In the Liverpool casae where a an 11 years old boy was murdered , the main criminal was only sentenced to 8 years. In a recent rapist case , the criminal would be ought of prison after 4 years. I doubt many people think these sentences are adequate. I think many peoples analysis of the problem are are more correct than many left wing/liberal middle class types. I think if people saw murderers and rapists receive the sort of punishments I have stated previously, then much of the criticism of the HRA would disappear. After all, the public were for the death penalty. The Hof C said that it would be replaced by a life sentence ,which meant life. The public trusts in the Hof C has been betrayed. Many people would be happy if life sentences meant life and rapists spent 20 years in prison undertaking hard labour. If sentences for rape were much more severe , perhaps the crime of rape would decline. Violence by criminals declines after 45 years of age . Therefore there is cause to keep violent criminals in prison until they are at least 45yrs old.

The problem we have in this modern day is that England does not expect every man to do his duty. If we want to strike the correct balance between rights and responsibilities then we have to create a society where England expects.

What is the ‘correct balance’?

“Lee Griffin . In the Liverpool casae where a an 11 years old boy was murdered , the main criminal was only sentenced to 8 years. In a recent rapist case , the criminal would be ought of prison after 4 years. I doubt many people think these sentences are adequate.”

I’ve not said that these sentences are just. I’m also not saying they’re unjust. The rapist could after only a few months be rehabilitated and not need to be in prison for longer than a year, the murderer may have problems which mean he will never be rehabilitated and as such should probably not be released (though this says nothing about what conditions he should endure or what rehabilitation process he should still go through).

This idea that we can deal with individuals through a blanket sentencing framework is exactly why people are able to feel that in certain cases they are not adequate.

“I think if people saw murderers and rapists receive the sort of punishments I have stated previously, then much of the criticism of the HRA would disappear. After all, the public were for the death penalty.”

Less and less every year, and are 50/50 against death penalty, I’m growing tired of pointing out the facts on this matter. See above comments for why sentencing should never be based on how much the vindictive mob believe a person should be punished.

“If sentences for rape were much more severe , perhaps the crime of rape would decline.”

pretty much every study I’ve read shows that severity of punishment does not lessen the likelihood of crimes being committed. Chance of being caught and social conditions are the primary factors.

Our prison are full of illiterate, innumerate alcholics/addicts. At present, we are happy to let them out when they’ve done their time in the same state that they went in. This achieves nothing,

You say this as if it was everyone else’s fault . They went to the same schools and had the same upbringing as the vast majority of underprivileged people who would no more steal rape murder and knife than anyone else .
Why should law abiding people pay taxes to hand over to the people who deserve hand outs least ? There are plenty of people to whom any spare resources we have would make a difference , scumbag criminals are last in the queue not the first.
You utterly misunderstand the place of justice in jurisprudence , the whole point of jurisprudence is to administer impersonal justice as opposed to allowing revenge .It is not to dump the concept of justice in the river and treat criminal as victims . Unless the state is administering justice it has no right to confine anyone at all nor to stop justice being exacted by those who care for the victim.

The whole business of rehabilitation is a separate and entirely secondary issue . We owe criminals nothing . I would handle it through charities which is what it is .

PRIORITY ON HOUSING !!! ARE YOU QUITE INSANE !!!!
I am sure that Griffin is winding me up

You are aware, Newmania, that the vast majority of criminals in prison have more than one mental health problem? Have you factored that in to your one size fits all “we’re all brought up the same” bullshit argument?

“Why should law abiding people pay taxes to hand over to the people who deserve hand outs least ?”

Why do they not deserve them?

“It is not to dump the concept of justice in the river and treat criminal as victims ”

No-one is claiming to treat them like victims, apart from people such as yourself that wish to paint that false picture for your own anti-HRA ends.

“PRIORITY ON HOUSING !!! ARE YOU QUITE INSANE !!!!
I am sure that Griffin is winding me up”

Nope, you’re just unable to see the best option for overall crime reduction, because you’d rather use an eye for an eye logic.

Incidentally why have we not got a load of them out clearing up the snow in tee shirts that say ” Prat ” …. my shoes could do with a polish as well. At the moment prison is so comfy people , quite literally , break in. In the US they have chain gangs clearing up the crap from the roads, why not here ? We could make the whole thing pay for itself and as far as rehabilitation goes we would be granting the gift of the redemptive power of physical Labour.

Its more likely to work than sticking a suit on a monkey and hoping he’ll give up bananas .

Newmania,

Why should law abiding people pay taxes to hand over to the people who deserve hand outs least ?

It is all very well locking people up, but what do you want to happen when they are released? (please, no idiocies about locking them up forever, I’m sure you would complain about how much it all costs.)

I’d like there to be some means of reducing recidivism. If increasing literacy reduces recidivism, I support it. Do you? If helping overcome chemical dependency reduces recidivism, I support it. Do you?

“At the moment prison is so comfy people , quite literally , break in. ”

You know, in Ireland people committed minor crimes to get in to prison for their steady food rations. Never was it claimed that prison being too nice was the reason, more that the fact government had allowed desperation to get that high for normally moral people that they should consider such thing.

If prison is looking too comfy, and in all reality I’d love to see you spend some time in one to really try and appreciate how ridiculous your claim is, step up your complaints about how people that need societies help are left behind. This is a seperate issue to prisons completely and can be dealt with as such.

Except..just a second, you’d be supportive of the Tory and Purnell idea of removing societies help from those that need it, wouldn’t you?

Why don’t you just come out and say it, you hate society, and you don’t want to save it…you want to cut out those *you* deem to be detrimental so that the “rest of us” can carry on unhindered.

“We could make the whole thing pay for itself and as far as rehabilitation goes we would be granting the gift of the redemptive power of physical Labour.”

Heh, slavery, excellent! This is progress, welcome to 2009!

An eye for an eye was actually a caution against cruel and unusual revenge in a society without any law except revenge . I daresay you would feel Israel might need reminding of this now it is also a good reminder of what happens when you cease to care about justice as quite clearly you have .

When you live on an estate there are always a few evil little scrotes that make everyone’s life hell . People are try to instil values into their children and the idea that if you become a criminal you get a house is just bonkers
Mental health problems; sheet of a bull. Yes New Labour have decanted the loons into the streets via misguided care in the community on the cheap policies , that’s a side issue . People in prison are not sick they are criminals , whats more they are more than capable of playing some dewy eyed social worker as they already do .
This all comes down to your belief that people are not responsible for their actions . If thast what you think why do we bother with courts at all , why not simply admit them to clinics for the societal disorders until they are cured in the opinion of a doctor , which may be never . Or do you want to re-import justice if it’s the criminal we are talking about ?

If you have no concept of justice why actually are we even bothering to talk about their rights . Lets just be unjust and feed then to the wild beasts , that`ll get crime down . Forget eye for an eye lets have two legs and a spleen for a broken window ..unless you want justice back ?

UK Liberty I am not against reducing recidvism , I just say that New KLabour have already run out of other people

oops

UK Liberty I am not against reducing recidivism, I just say that New Labour have already run out of other people’s money and when resources are scarce they should be directed at the law abiding first.
This is not a flippant point , many people live in areas where they face a choice and hard time living a decent life . Some of these people turn to the BNP when they see that New Labour and its progressive elite care only for criminals

Lee , calling prison work slavery is like calling incarceration kidnap . I see no reason whatsoever within the bounds of civilised behaviour why prison should not be unpleasant humiliating and hard work ..( sounds a bit like my job actually which I had better get back to …no plasma TV here unfortunately , no fully equipped gym etc.)

“I daresay you would feel Israel might need reminding of this now it is also a good reminder of what happens when you cease to care about justice as quite clearly you have .”

Another example of you saying things to paint your own picture, despite what I’ve actually said. I care for justice, I just don’t happen to think a murderer who is going to reoffend should be let out because their victim’s family forgives him while a mentally ill and remorseful shoplifter is incarcerated for a decade due to a vindictive shop owner. Justice needs to be about righting wrongs, not about satisfying the base urges of those on the wrong end of the crime.

With this we have to accept some people are too blood thirsty to ever receive appropriate justice in their eyes. The ultimate and best justice to society is that a criminal is rehabilitated, pays for his crime in the form of something such as restorative justice, and is saved from reoffending through appropriate support.

“People are try to instil values into their children and the idea that if you become a criminal you get a house is just bonkers”

It is only bonkers because the government already has a woeful housing strategy, unless of course you agree with criminals being left to fester in situations that will make them likely to reoffend?

A practical example of what I’m talking about would be for the building of temporary housing centres for ex-convicts. A place where they can have an address, a certain level of security and their freedom back while they look to reintegrate with society. This means they don’t have to jump the queue on other people that also desperately need housing, but can quickly move in to housing and carry on with their now productive (hopefully) lives. All of this can be done instead of titan prisons EASILY. Of course it could also all be done by the government sorting out the empty houses issue, and actually sorting out their housing strategy.

But I know you’d rather ignore the root problems and center in on one hypothetical here as the reason for the whole idea being “insane”, it’s a good diversionary tactic.

“Mental health problems; sheet of a bull. ”

Go look at the figures, unless you’re happy flying blind and pissing in the wind.

“This all comes down to your belief that people are not responsible for their actions .”

I believe people are responsible for their actions. Do you think we should ignore the relevance of mental health problems on patterns of behaviour then? Just assign people with these issues the same level of sentencing and care that we give anyone else, make a wish, close our eyes and hope for the best?

“Lee , calling prison work slavery is like calling incarceration kidnap ”

Who said anything about calling prison work slavery? Prison economy is very much different to the real world, and they get paid for doing work. You’re talking about a situation of making criminals work enough to pay off their place in prison. That is slavery my friend, and also highly amusing given those that take up the most resources in prison are the least likely to be able to do any meaningful work in society.

Yes yes, Soru, but how does improving the rights of prisoners, in terms of their own situation and while considering the rights of the public, negatively affect the rights of the rest of the public?

That’s certainly a good thing in my book. And it”s very much the opposite of subjecting prisoners to essentially random changes based on the general evolution of civil rights outside prison.

One of the fundamental rights a prisoner has is the right to do their time: to serve a sentence that society judges appropriate and complete punishment, and then rejoin society as an equal.

Mistakes in sentencing policy will deny prisoners that right. As will misjudgements in the interpretation of other rights, such as the right to sell a story to the papers…

In the US they have chain gangs clearing up the crap from the roads, why not here ?

Yes, the US is a good model to follow – their criminal justice system works very well.

“Mistakes in sentencing policy will deny prisoners that right. As will misjudgements in the interpretation of other rights, such as the right to sell a story to the papers…”

Yes, certainly that last point is a very good one…though one that I find quite ironic. The public don’t appreciate the “abuse” of rights by criminals, but will slavishly lap up the tabloid press who pay for such stories while simultaneously complaining about how criminals get it better than the general public. I mean, you couldn’t get a more complicated form of hypocrisy if you tried.

Newmania: to revisit this point…

“People are try to instil values into their children and the idea that if you become a criminal you get a house is just bonkers”

Are people stupid for trying to instill the belief that if you an innocent member of society, that you should be supported, if you are in need, by your government?

Yeah yeah and all 2,000,000 on a sick note have real achey backs and mental health problems .Medicalising behaviour we do not like is dishonest and thoroughly sinister
Working off your debt to society is not slavery its a punishment with the additional perk of getting the lawns mown. If it really bothers you they can break rocks or dig holes but I do not see why we should not offset some of the expense they cause us.

I have never and would never suggest that the feelings of victims should be taken into account .Clearly someone else has , because you keep returning to it .That would offend the very principle of impersonal justice on which societally underwritten law depends . It replaces revenge not enables it and such an idea is an abhorrent negation of a thousand years of British law.

When I say justice I mean that justice meted out through the courts as an approximation of the proper balancing of scales so as to exclude emotion and required consistency. It is exactly because this concept is so important and so fundamental that the replacement of justice with social convenience ,rehabilitation and now , it appears the spurious medicalising of anti social behaviour by those .

There may be some value in some of what you say . My suggestion is that it is separated from the Justice system given its own budget and the level o f funding we are prepared to give to criminals and their sad feelings is part of the manifesto of the Political Parties.

The great British Public will of course flock to spend their cash on canoe trips for rapists and there will be a bidding war between Conservative and Labour as to who can arrange the best redemptive trip to Hawaii or supply the cleanest table tennis room and the Dead beat Plaza
Lets get some democracy involved here , now surely we can all agree on that.

“We imprison people to protect the rights of the rest of the public. We limit their privacy to protect other inmates, though obviously a good level of privacy is still afforded.
Beyond this what other reason is there for limiting rights beyond vindictiveness?”

The object of prison is the prevention of crime and every punishment should have a double effect – it must deter the the person who has committed the crime from repeating it and it must deter other members of the community from committing similar crimes. Its amazing that you’ve overlooked this obvious point.

When prisons were punitive, harsh places and run by the authorities, prison did actually frighten people into not repeating their crimes. Nowadays though prisons are just useless warehouses with TVs and awash with drugs. Prison doesn’t work because it doesn’t punish, so doesn’t deter reoffending, and because you can’t lock all criminals up all the time. All it does is keep a small number of criminals off the streets at one time, hoping the public will be fooled into imagining that something is actually being done about crime. They have been fooled up to now but the coming economic fallout will increase public demand for more punitive sentencing. Good economic times have to a large extent protected a lot of people from the effects of our wet criminal justice system.

Rehabilitation by the way is another load of bullshit which need exposing. It’s now so difficult to get into prison that most of the prisoners there today are impervious to correction by the time they arrive because they have been neither deterred nor punished during their entire criminal careers. They thus become confirmed in their criminal habits. They eventually give up crime because they become too old for it, not because their characters have been improved by social workers.

Rapists can be on the streets after 5-6 years.

Or 8,10, 12, or 15 years, or life imprisonment, depending on the circumstances.

noughtpointzero: Thanks. I don’t need to respond to them now.

Lee Griffin: I’m highlighting some of the arrogance that I find in people who want the benefits of society but don’t want to accept societies rules. Most criminals are simply disfunctionals, people who don’t fit in with society, while some are evil. Our role is, in thsi capacity, is to sell the benefits of society to them. Is there a value to something that comes for free?

ukliberty: I didn’t say it was easy. I think this is extremely complex and shouldn’t be rushed into. In fact, I don’t even suggest that it should be legislated, but I do suggest that it should be policy that Prosecutors should take this into account when considering a charge and that judges should take this into account as they consider the agravating and mitigating facts before making judgements. This in itself would cause employment in the appeals court, and I think that it would be there that clarity would be provided.

Newmania: Thanks, Newmania, but keep your gun holstered for now. It is implicit in what I’m saying that the people need to have faith in the system and I believe they are disillusioned when they are refused staste provision of access to the law, while inmates are able to be represented on all kinds of things at the tax-payers expense. This system would go some way to restoring faith in the system.

Flying Rodent: Comment noted.

Lee Griffin: Yes, but restorative justceis another essay all together.

11. Charlie: Yes, people feel that the system is on the side of the offender and this argument may relieve that phenonema, but it isn’t an argument for tougher sentencing.

12. soru: I agree that comlex answers are needed for complex questions.

16. soru: I wouldn’t want to limit the rights of people to rehabilitate, or gain employment etc. In fact,, Sonny made me cut back the original article where I made the point that the Americans are wrong to deny people with a criminal record the right to social housing. Social housing is for the vulnerable and peole who come into contact with the police are most often the vulnerable.

18. Mike Killingworth: We can’t sentence on the wishes of a victim’s family. There are good addiction services in jail, the problem is that the physical barrier that jail creates between the offender and the substance only exists during the incarceration. Addiction is an emotion not a physical problem. They have ot attend programs on the outside, where they choose whether or not to take drink/drugs rather than are forced not to take them due to four walls.

21. tim f: We agree to disagree then.

23. ukliberty: I don’t know what is the correct balance. I’m opening it up for debate, including contributions from yourself.

24. Newmania: Always nice to find a strong opinion. Some people commit crime due to a tragic past while others have no excuse. One problem that I have seen in the system is that advocates often need to find mitigation. Those that have no excuse will supply it. I’m guilty of advocating such mitigation on a regular basis, even when I don’t believe it. If I don’t have facts to demonstrate it to be made-up, my integrity is safe. Although I’m not proud of that.

37. Dan | thesamovar: I think the US probably goes to the opposite extreme.

“Yeah yeah and all 2,000,000 on a sick note have real achey backs and mental health problems .Medicalising behaviour we do not like is dishonest and thoroughly sinister”

You don’t even know the figures, and we’re supposed to take your word for whether they’re “faking it” or not? Hillarious

“Working off your debt to society is not slavery its a punishment with the additional perk of getting the lawns mown. If it really bothers you they can break rocks or dig holes but I do not see why we should not offset some of the expense they cause us.”

As long as they’re paid fairly in their respective economy and remain entitled to the rights non-associated to their prison sentence or crime as any other person then I agree.

“I have never and would never suggest that the feelings of victims should be taken into account .Clearly someone else has , because you keep returning to it .That would offend the very principle of impersonal justice on which societally underwritten law depends . It replaces revenge not enables it and such an idea is an abhorrent negation of a thousand years of British law.”

Fair enough, I’ll take that.

“When I say justice I mean that justice meted out through the courts as an approximation of the proper balancing of scales”

And this style of justice is outdated and unjust. It judges individuals on a measure of the masses. Simple as that.

When prisons were punitive, harsh places and run by the authorities, prison did actually frighten people into not repeating their crimes

Really Eric? No-one who went to prison every committed another crime on being released?

Are people stupid for trying to instill the belief that if you an innocent member of society, that you should be supported, if you are in need, by your government?

Well that would be the belief in socialism to which the answer is
1-By government you mean tax payer. Why should he? Whose money is it ?
2-It does not work
3-In order to attempt it you need to throw away individual Liberty
4 Even if all of that was not objection enough , and it is , it still would not mean that
you bore no responsibility for your own life or that the law abiding should be behind the thieves murderers rapists child molesters and the other evil bastards who prey on them

It’s a little off the point as we are talking about the guilty anyway

“When prisons were punitive, harsh places and run by the authorities, prison did actually frighten people into not repeating their crimes.”

Anything to back that up? I’d be interested in seeing your reoffending rates for the 19th century given the level of capital punishment, deportation, and lack of records (including photographic evidence that stopped people from claiming they were someone different from who they were). I’d also love to see how you’ve normalised all of this to discount the more recent take up for short stint sentencing that has fueled our recent reoffending rate rise.

I will love to see those figures.

“Prison doesn’t work because it doesn’t punish, so doesn’t deter reoffending, and because you can’t lock all criminals up all the time.”

Every report I’ve seen shows that punishment doesn’t deter crime, only fear of getting caught, and their social situation. I can’t repeat this enough.

“the problem is that the physical barrier that jail creates between the offender and the substance only exists during the incarceration.”

The problem (here) is that once the physical barrier is removed there is little support left for the ex-con. Rehabilitation programs that carry on after incarceration are woeful in this country.

23. ukliberty: I don’t know what is the correct balance. I’m opening it up for debate, including contributions from yourself.

But I don’t think they can be ‘balanced’… rights are not contingent on the proper discharge of one’s responsibilities.

I find this issue interesting particularly because Jack Straw (among others) keep banging on about it in terms of a new British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. Yet they appear unable to enumerate the responsibilities they think we have, or how people can be persuaded to be responsible if said responsibility is non-enforceable.

All to come in a Green Paper that is unlikely to appear before the next general election.

ukliberty: I didn’t say it was easy. I think this is extremely complex and shouldn’t be rushed into. In fact, I don’t even suggest that it should be legislated, but I do suggest that it should be policy that Prosecutors should take this into account when considering a charge and that judges should take this into account as they consider the agravating and mitigating facts before making judgements. This in itself would cause employment in the appeals court, and I think that it would be there that clarity would be provided.

Oh lovely, another legal minefield! Criminal law is complex enough as it is – introducing non statutory policy that contravenes well established law isn’t going to help anyone but the lawyers.

“The recent case in Liverpool with the young boy being shot , the murderer has only received 8 years.”

In the Rhys Jones case the murderer was given a tariff of 22 years.

Accuracy please.

I think we need to asses why you need to punish criminals in the first place. Is it in order to get ‘revenge’ for the act of crime? This would be stupid, as it doesn’t benefit anyone and only costs the state more. Is it in order to for the Criminal to repay his/her debts to society? Locking them up for a good few years does not help at all, especially in our underfunded prisons, where they will probably end up nothing more than better connections with the criminal world.
The only plausible reason is as a deterrent, which is why it is argued that you have to be tough on criminals, in order to deter others from committing crime. But does this work? If we look at the statistics, Norway has one of the lowest Murder rates in the world, yet it has very a ‘soft touch’ prison system. The Prisons look more like hotels than anything we would identify as a prison here. Clearly addressing the social causes of crime is far more effective in cutting crime than increased deterrents. Further more, Norwegian prisons are far more focused on rehabilitation than punishment. After all most crime is committed by repeat-offenders, which either means that the deterrent is too weak, or that it simply not effective in cutting crime. Of course, one might argue that the best way of cutting repeat offenders is by introducing the death penalty, but I don’t think anyone declaring themselves on the Liberal-Left would support that. And the statistics hardly support the theory that re-introducing the death penalty would decrease crime.
Perhaps is you treat people with a soft touch they will respond by committing more crime, but I think that a criminal leaving prison with good training and job prospects is far less likely to re-offend than one leaving only with better criminal contacts.

I would be interested to know what proportion of people are in jail for drug-related offences and therefore what the prison population would be if all drugs were de-criminalised.

Incidently if Liberals want to have their views challenged on criminal justice I can recommend David Fraser’s a Land Fit For Criminals.

Some interesting info in it includes the fact that most crime is committed by a hardcore of either 100,000 or 300,000 people (I can’t remember which is the correct figure). Furthermore, crime figures produced independently and verified by the Home Office show crime to be much much higher than either the police reports of crime or the BCS do, which suggests we really need to get some accurate crime statistics.

In addition to my above post I’ve just checked the book and it quotes a home office press release from 2001 stating that “there were at least 100,000 persistent offenders responsible for half of crime”. The problem of course is that locking up all these people would be very expensive which might explain why Conservative governments are unlikely to take a punitive approach.

Re crime figures, the government’s own estimates put the number of crimes at an astonishing 62 million (Home Office Research Paper 217). The number recorded by the police is just under 6 million and the number estimated by the BCS is 13 million.

Great post, Dan – it always makes me laugh when anybody talks of offenders ‘paying their debt to society’ as if crime were a matter of double entry book keeping.

Rhys Jones was shot in the head by a dysfunctional gang-banger, while baby P had his spine snapped by a supposed carer – their selfish actions remind me of Harry Stack Sullivan’s marvelous epithet “the FAILURE OF LEARNING which has left their capacity for fantastic, self-centered delusions so utterly unaffected by a life long history of educative events” (a reference to those who have great difficulty in recognising their own incompetence).

While it is laudable that we strive to find a reasonable balance between ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’, surely common sense dictates that the balance has now swung too far in favour of criminals who morph into barrack room lawyers when even the most trivial transgressions is committed against them.
If anybody is unclear about the sort I’m referring to then a few minutes in the company of Inspector Gadget will soon clarify matters.
http://inspectorgadget.wordpress.com/

ukliberty: This was written for 10 Downing Street policy unit when they asked me to provide them with something for the Green Paper you mentioned. So we’ll see.

TQL:The reasons for prison are Deterence, Satisfaction to the victim, Removing the worng-doer for a period, and supposedly Rehabilitaion. The Rehabilitation bit is unfortunately lacking.

Here’s a radical suggestion. Make penal policy a function of local government.

Hampstead penal policy can be run by liberal lefties and the criminal classes can be shipped off to Cuba to study la revolucion in action and learn how they are the victims of capitalist oppression. Meanwhile in Kensington & Chelsea corporal punishment will be reintroduced, with crucifixion for the more serious offenders.

Why bicker about it? Try both and see what works.

[55] That would be “radical” as in “completely idiotic”, then…

Leaving aside the exaggeration, its actually a good idea, but I’d go more on a regional level than local authority level. For serious offences you’d still need the same punishment everywhere for obvious reasons, but in terms of the actual prison regime and non prison alternatives it would be good to see what works and what doesn’t .

The parents of Rhys Jones, the 11-year-old boy shot dead in Liverpool in August 2007 as he walked home from football practice, spoke of their “disgust” last night after a judge ruled that three gang members convicted over the killing will serve only five years in prison between them.

James Yates, 21, a member of a gang that called itself the Croxteth Crew, was given a seven-year sentence. He supplied the 1915 Smith & Wesson gun used by the murderer Sean Mercer, 18, and also helped dump the weapon and Mercer’s clothing. After time on remand is taken into account, he will serve two years and nine months.

Nathan Quinn, 18, and Dean Kelly, 17, were sentenced for assisting Mercer. Quinn will serve a year and Kelly 15 months. As the trio were led from the dock at Liverpool Crown Court they cheered with delight, smiling and winking at friends and family in the public gallery. A security guard could be heard telling them to be quiet.

Rhys’s parents, Stephen and Melanie Jones, broke their silence to call the sentences “a disgrace”.

“We are disgusted at the seven-year sentence given to Sean Mercer’s accomplice, James Yates, today,” they said. “In our minds, he is the one who provided the gun that killed our son and he deserved a longer sentence. We feel seven years is a disgrace. These sentences can in no way compensate for the loss of our loving son.” Last month Mercer, of Croxteth, was jailed for a minimum 22-year term.

After Rhys bled to death in his mother’s arms in the car park of Croxteth’s Fir Tree pub, Yates was at the centre of a plan to avoid justice. He rushed to Mercer’s aid as they converged at the home of Boy M (who cannot be named for legal reasons) with Nathan Quinn.

Quinn is already serving five years for possession of a gun. He accompanied the gang on a trip to nearby Kirkby where Mercer was doused with petrol to remove gunshot residue. Quinn was convicted unanimously by a jury of helping to dump the murder weapon and Mercer’s clothes.

He was due to be released from his current sentence in June 2010 – imposed for trying to buy a gun just weeks after Rhys’s murder. Yesterday he was jailed for two more years. He will serve just one and be released in June 2011. He pulled a smile of gleeful surprise at the public gallery as he was led from the dock.

Kelly, of Croxteth, was sentenced to four years for possession of guns, ammunition and assisting an offender. Boy M, who has attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, and was previously beaten up by his gang mates for “grassing”, was given a two-year supervision order with a four-month 7pm to 7am curfew.

James Hughes, 22, of Croxteth, was jailed for six months for lying to police about Boy M’s whereabouts when Rhys was killed.

50 . Planeshift -copy from Independent. Actual murderer will serve 22 yr tariff, but accomplice received 7 yr sentence . If the criminal receives parol when will he be released?

24 Lee Griffin are you actually saying that a rapist could released from prison if they are rehabilitated after a few months? If someone is raped and the rapist only receives a sentence of a few months ,is not society stating that rape is considered a minor crime?
The British public has largely accepted the death penalty is unacceptable however many people believe that a life sentence should mean life of at least 40-50 years without parol. Your description of people who wish to see life sentences to mean life or at least 40-50 years as a vindictive mob ignores the fact that many people consider that as murder is the most serious of all crimes, then the punishment should reflect that. There are too many cases of people undertaking violent criminal acts after they have been released from prison. Someone who is over 70 yrs of age when they are released from prison for murder, is unlikely ever to carry out another violent act. When considering sentencing criminals for acts of violence, it would appear that too often often the trauma suffered by the survivors and their families, which can last the whole of their lives appears to be very low on the criminal justce system list of priorities. Too often sentencing appears to add insult to injury for the victims and their families- see above article.

Charlie I think you have the balance just right on the death penalty m very sensible all round in fact

“ukliberty: This was written for 10 Downing Street policy unit when they asked me to provide them with something for the Green Paper you mentioned. So we’ll see.”

Bugger. Well here’s to hoping they won’t listen, talk about giving a dog a bone…I’d hardly encourage this government to revocate more rights given how willing they are to do it without anyone’s advice.

“50 . Planeshift -copy from Independent. Actual murderer will serve 22 yr tariff, but accomplice received 7 yr sentence . If the criminal receives parol when will he be released?”

So murder is more or less punishable than supplying someone, who has complete control over his own person, with a weapon? Seriously, what’s your point?

“24 Lee Griffin are you actually saying that a rapist could released from prison if they are rehabilitated after a few months? If someone is raped and the rapist only receives a sentence of a few months ,is not society stating that rape is considered a minor crime?”

No, it’d be society stating that (assuming sufficient trust was built up in the process of rehabilitation and those that assess it’s success, a separate issue for discussion) they don’t want to incarcerate someone who knows they’ve done wrong, has changed their ways and can be a productive member of society. It’s nothing to do with the crime committed, which is kind of the point.

“Your description of people who wish to see life sentences to mean life or at least 40-50 years as a vindictive mob ignores the fact that many people consider that as murder is the most serious of all crimes”

It doesn’t ignore that at all, the fact people believe it’s the most serious crime doesn’t at all link with the mentality of keeping someone locked up for life when they have, in rehabilitative terms, “done their time”. It is only vindictiveness and a rather disproportionate fear that drives such calls, not the fact they believe it’s the most serious crime.

“There are too many cases of people undertaking violent criminal acts after they have been released from prison. ”

Well, one is too many as I’m sure you’ll agree, but short of never letting anyone out of prison after they’ve been subjected to the melting pot of criminal knowledge and behaviour you won’t stop that from happening unfortunately…not without better policing to deter criminals in the first place through fear of capture.

But, what are your figures in relation to? The latest study I can find shows that only 0.5% of reoffenders are serious and violent, the vast majority of reoffenders are young, petty, drug addicted and minor…and probably wouldn’t be reoffenders if they weren’t incarcerated for such small crimes in the first place, and were actually supported with their drug habits after incarceration.

The question is how many violent offenders are released every year. Is it the 300-400 that cause? No, if we look at the report (here it is… http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_08reoffending.pdf )

Conversely, of the re-offences of offenders with an index offence of violence (serious), only 1.5% of the re-offences were also violence (serious).

This would suggest that if all the reoffenders with violent crime were previously seriously violent then 25000-30000 violent criminals must be released a year. However only 1k or so seriously violent criminals are released, so only 15 or so reoffend to the same degree. Far from violent criminals going back in to society and being violent, the vast majority are being less violent (if violent at all).

“When considering sentencing criminals for acts of violence, it would appear that too often often the trauma suffered by the survivors and their families, which can last the whole of their lives appears to be very low on the criminal justce system list of priorities.”

Good, the last thing we need, as I’ve said, is peoples feelings influencing an impartial sentencing process.

“the last thing we need is peoples feelings influencing an impartial sentencing process”.

The law is not an end in itself, but simply a flawed means to an end.

“Feelings” are central to how we (as individuals and society) respond to injustice.

Why on earth should victims of crime, such as the family of Rhys Jones, play no role in sentencing, providing we have agreed consensus about much influence a family might exert after certain types of crimes have been proven in court ?

This type of thinking would still allow judges to set an initial tariff, but families could then either reduce or increase this sentence (within certain boundaries), dependent on their subjective experience.

For example, once a guilty verdict had been reached families might be supplied with information about the offenders background in order to assist them in arriving at a decision – this way they would know if the perp was a serial villain, or a first time offender (an very important point for many people) .

Clearly, one or two here prefer to maintain certain illusions about ‘impartiality’, and so on, but our institutions only make any sense when they reflect the general mood of the population – in other words the very people that are meant to benefit from this type of arrangement.
Ordinary people realise, of course, that corporate cheats, for example, are hardly ever brought before the courts and even when they are they retain the best lawyers in town to exploit various technical loopholes.

It would be too tedious to dwell on the inefficiencies of the CPS while hardly a week goes past with some judge or other being caught out with Mrs Whiplash – Peter Cook captures it all perfectly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xi-agPf95M

This was written for 10 Downing Street policy unit when they asked me to provide them with something for the Green Paper you mentioned. So we’ll see.

!!!

Jesus Christ, that’s fucking terrifying! If anyone from 10 Downing Street is reading, can I say DO NOT PUT THESE POLICIES INTO PRACTICE, THEY WILL BE OPEN TO FLAGRANT ABUSE AND WILL INEVITABLY PRODUCE HORRENDOUS RESULTS.

No offence Dan, but these are terrible ideas, for reasons I outlined at comment 9., above. From my own experience, there is no proposal for dealing with criminals that is so Draconian that the public will not support it, but that does not mean that Draconian proposals are automatically a good idea.

I’ve said this again and again – I’ve worked in a court, and it is not the job of a court to make a better society. The responsibility for that lies with a) you and I and b) politicians, in that order – the job of the courts is to keep a lid on crime by punishing offenders or getting them into programmes to reduce reoffending, period. Courts are the venue of last resort, not magical-pony-factories, and it doesn’t matter how many executive powers we give judges – they cannot punish their way to a new golden era.

And once again, can I note my horror that these proposals are appearing at a site called Liberal Conspiracy? If you were looking for proposals that were the antithesis of liberal society, here they are.

The core problem here is that “left-liberals” fail to recognise that people who are willing to burgle their neighbours, or steal from people in the street, or drive at 80mph in a stolen car the wrong way down a crowded road, or glass someone in the face for looking at them funny, are precisely not “left-liberals”. They’re bastards. They may be mad bastards as well, but first and foremost they’re selfish, amoral, bastards. They don’t behave like nice “left-liberals” because their vision of the world is completely different, and always will be. Failure to acknowledge this achieves the double whammy of being both patronising and inept. Most of the posters above seem to sincerely believe that what we might call “cuddling up to crime” will somehow reduce it. They might point to a few countries where such schemes are vaguely “successful” – generally countries with extremely high underlying measures of social cohesion, which is not, alas, the case in the UK. They will slide over exactly how much it costs to do all the lovely, cuddly things that could be done to try to persuade offenders to be nicer people – that, for example, the NHS could have an extra nurse [at least], for the cost of locking up one toerag. They will, most certainly, in their heart of hearts, hold the belief that somehow it isn’t really the offender’s fault. For some of them this will be because, deep down, they aren’t “liberals” at all, but closet Leninists, who take pleasure in the disintegration of bourgeois society. Others of them are just soppy, and think that defence of an arbitrary and artificially-constructed set of things called “Human Rights”, which somehow includes the right of those who will not support themselves to be supported by the state, is the central plank of human social existence.

In short, shoot the bloody toerags, it’s cheap, simple and quick.

Who ordered the Speak-You’re-Branes-inverted-commas-bot?

Flying rodent – you seem to have great anxieties about “policies” (being abused).

Perhaps you need to worry less about abstractions and more about the effects of crime on real victims ?

I’s disingenuous to blame “the public” – I hate that line of argument.
It’s simply a charter for self-appointed “experts” who think they know best when in reality all they ever attain is a more sophisticated level of self deception (certainly when we begin to add up serial failings within the legal & penal systems).

Has it ever occurred to you that people might favour “draconian” sentencing because they are simply fed up of being robbed, assaulted or much, much worse ? (see Rhys Jones).

If you break into somebody’s house, carry out a sexual assault, or stick a knife into some random stranger then the rest of us, but particularly those directly affected, expect there to be consequences – in what way is that illiberal ?

[65] There are consequences as it is – no one is arguing otherwise.

I just don’t believe that someone contemplating giving/selling a potential murderer a gun will stop and think “that’s OK, I’ll only get seven years in jail even if I’m caught” but would be deterred if the number was twelve. Largely because they don’t expect to get caught in the first place.

Nursey, I doubt you need a history lesson – if you hand executive powers to petty officials, they will inevitably abuse them. You don’t need to be a libertarian to spot this obvious point.

I’s disingenuous to blame “the public”

I’m blaming no-one – I’m saying the public generally support any measure that proposes to “get tough on crime”. They will do so even if said measures are counterproductive, if they merely create another layer of expensive bureaucracy, or whether they increase recidivism. Most people don’t like to think too hard about public policy, because there is no black-and-white answer to our problems. That’s perfectly understandable, but it doesn’t follow that we should all nod along to whatever Clip ‘em all round the ear proposals are rolled out, no matter how ludicrous they are.

Has it ever occurred to you that people might favour “draconian” sentencing because they are simply fed up of being robbed, assaulted or much, much worse ? (see Rhys Jones).

No, of course not. As a “left liberal” (see Davey, above) I’m greatly in favour of criminals murdering and robbing children and pensioners, and would gladly hold their coats for them while they do it. Or, maybe not – maybe I just favour government making good policies, not shit ones that please the kind of person prone to jumping on his high-horse and woofing about “left-liberals” (see Davey, above).

in what way is that illiberal ?

A codified and consistent legal framework that hands hefty punishments to criminals after trial is in no way illiberal – I’m in favour of heavy sentences for serious crimes. What I dislike is proposals to hand weighty powers to unqualified and unsupervised public officials to dispense as they please. As a nation, we have more than enough examples of what happens when we choose to do such things.

And, by the way, a guide for argument – Perhaps you need to worry less about abstractions and more about the effects of crime on real victims?

Perhaps you need to worry less about extrapolating my opinions out of thin air, and more about how criminal justice actually works.

And, to be honest, if you disdain the opinions of experts so much, I suggest you perform dental surgery on yourself the next time you feel a twinge in a molar. One man’s common sense being another’s daft, knee-jerk nonsense, after all.

“They don’t behave like nice “left-liberals” because their vision of the world is completely different, and always will be.”

Proof?

“Has it ever occurred to you that people might favour “draconian” sentencing because they are simply fed up of being robbed, assaulted or much, much worse ? (see Rhys Jones).”

It occurs to us all the time, and it makes it no better or more right to justify such stances.

“If you break into somebody’s house, carry out a sexual assault, or stick a knife into some random stranger then the rest of us, but particularly those directly affected, expect there to be consequences”

There are consequences, you go to jail! And let’s remember that jail is not a magical land of gumdrops and fairies where criminals simply bide their time while eating grapes handed out by virgins…it seems some are slightly oblivious.

But why, a&e, does any of that mean these people don’t deserve to keep as many of their rights as they can that don’t contravene with the general rights of the public? Why they should lose rights in a process that actually, in essence, will only encourage them to reoffend?

Yes, we can only ever speculate about the mysterious thought processes that drift into the frontal cortex of your average 17 year old gang-banger (when considering the acquisition, distribution or use of firearms, for example).

Surely, we are on a hiding to nothing if anyone thinks they can unravel how these unfortunate individuals arrived at nihilism central, or more to the point how we can get any of them to board the train to model-citizens-R-us ?

Given that we have no realistic prospect of crime prevention, despite the availability of universal education, health and a welfare state (all taken for granted, of course).
And can only guess about who is likely to re-offend, then the least we can do, in my book, is to involve victims (should they choose to be involved) in any criminal proceedings.

I do not think we can achieve Dan’s lofty ambition of eradicating the growing population of non-civic minded individuals but I DO think those harmed by their actions should have a direct influence on the legal process.

“Given that we have no realistic prospect of crime prevention, despite the availability of universal education, health and a welfare state (all taken for granted, of course).”

When were you last the victim of serious crime? Cos from my perspective, crime prevention works pretty damn well – despite living somewhere fairly rough, I’ve not been the victim of anything worse than pickpocketing for 10 years. The fact that drooling bigoted clowns *think* crime is a serious problem is Neither Here Nor There.

“Surely, we are on a hiding to nothing ”

Seems to be a better strategy than doing nothing and hiding.

“Given that we have no realistic prospect of crime prevention”

We have realistic prospects, but it’ll take a government more willing to spend properly on crime prevention, neither the Tories or Labour are willing to.

“I do not think we can achieve Dan’s lofty ambition of eradicating the growing population of non-civic minded individuals but I DO think those harmed by their actions should have a direct influence on the legal process.”

Let’s ask this one in a new post, for clarity. Are you happy with the idea that a serial killer that cannot be reformed could have his sentence reduced because the families want to forgive him as soon as possible, while someone truly remorseful and repentant should server a longer sentence because the victim is more vindictive?

Can you not see how ridiculous that situation is?

“Why on earth should victims of crime, such as the family of Rhys Jones, play no role in sentencing”

Because they have no right to inflict on the criminals liberties any more than the criminal inflicted on theirs…which is why the criminal is going to prison, and they are not.

Flying rodent – you claim that if “power” is handed to “petty officials” it will be abused.
So, are you seriously suggesting that power should be centralised, remote and in the hands of the few, then it won’t be ?

Again you assert the public do not understand the issues.
You then mask your put-down with a platitude: “it’s not all black and white”.
Well of course it isn’t, ask anyone who has ever taken out a grievance against an institution like a hospital, for example.
The first rule is to disseminate responsibility so widely that no one is ever directly culpable…………………..this approach usually works a treat.

You then say you want “good” policies (not shit ones) – meaningless, I’m afraid.
Good for who, gang-bangers, the family of Rhys Jones, the general public ?

Experts may have their uses – but the first question to ask any ‘expert’ is how will society benefit from your expertise ?
Dan’s post has merely captures a gestalt – the experts (it seems) seem to offer few solutions to the growing effects of crime in our communities.
What’s wrong with pointing out that we should ALL accept a few basic responsibilities.

“What’s wrong with pointing out that we should ALL accept a few basic responsibilities.”

What’s wrong with accepting that this is CONSTANTLY pointed out?

I see, john B – if YOU have not suffered a serious crime then nobody else has, and the system is working at the optimum level.
Thanks for clarifying that misunderstanding.

I was involved in a case of a young man who was stabbed, and bled to death in A&E.
Still as long as YOU are content, no need to trouble anybody else, eh ?

Perhaps you would have been bold enough to inform his parents that they were acting like drooling bigots, but I must admit I wasn’t that brave.

61. Lee Griffin. You do bring up the point of rehabilitation which is very important. The question is how does one make sure? It would appear that if those who make a mistake and a criminal re-offends, they are guilt of poor professional judgement. It would be interesting if any of those who consider a criminal fit to enter the World who then goes on to commit further crimes actually ever meet the victims.

Personally , I would like to see a minimum tariff of 50 years for all murders and 25 years for rape with no parol.

“It would be interesting if any of those who consider a criminal fit to enter the World who then goes on to commit further crimes actually ever meet the victims.”

Would definitely, I don’t know, and rehabilitation is definitely a larger separate subject.

Lee – there is a fundamental flaw in your line of thinking.

Offenders make choices, bad choices from the perspective of the victim of crime.
The solution in the mind of many decent people is to do even MORE for them, so that they might finally realise the error of their ways, or least act more sociably after a period of rehabilitation.

But remember these are often people who have failed to engage with a free and progressive education system (in the main), or have failed to express any gratitude for the billions spent on various welfare schemes (the sense of entitlement culture).

And even if they were amenable to rehab the prospect of receiving the intensive sort of life coaching that the like of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson received are very remote given the dire state of our prisons and the long queue of inarticulate young men with a penchant for drugs, weapons and aggressive dogs.

In short criminal rehab is a very fragile (and expensive) beast and rather like its counterpart in the dependency world is hardly in the business f guaranteeing results.

You seem worry about the human rights of offenders whereas my emphasis is on the victims of crime because despite john b’s personal utopia I see the effects of it most days (drug facilitated rape, muggings, assaults, RTAs).

I do not believe there is such a thing as a perfect system but in my opinion we should put victims at the heart of any legal process (with certain safeguards and provisos).
Perhaps a dangerous crminal might sneak out a bit early but this is already happening and with devastating results.

For god’s sake, this is getting ridiculous.

We can’t possibly prevent all crime, in any practical sense, so there will always be someone bleeding to death in an A&E. That’s life. All credit to A&E charge nurse for doing the job but not the best person to talk about crime, sorry.

We have to talk about likelihoods, probabilities, risks – not absolutes. How can we reduce (we can never completely get rid of them) the numbers who turn to crime? How can we reduce the likelihoods of offending and reoffending?

Kill criminals, sure… riiight. Let’s talk about something we will actually do, not macho bullshit fantasies that will never happen in the real world. (and besides, it only prevents reoffending)

Increasing the likelihood of people being caught deters people from crime.

Reducing poverty reduces crime.

Improving education and employment reduces crime.

And so on.

Again, I’m not talking in absolutes but merely improvements – by doing lots of things that all impact on crime (a very broad subject in itself).

[80] A&E nurse – you haven’t answered the point that I made earlier and Lee made even better at [73].

In your world, the person who kills an isolated friendless derelict for kicks, although he may be a psycopath of the most dangerous variety, would receive a relatively light sentence because there are no next of kin to suffer by his death. In other words, you don’t see all human life as equally valuable. That’s your prerogative. But please admit that this makes you a small-c conservative.

This was written for 10 Downing Street policy unit when they asked me to provide them with something for the Green Paper you mentioned. So we’ll see.

If you mean, we’ll see when the Green Paper comes out, I think I’ve confused the date of the Green Paper with the date of the Bill. Now I recall Straw saying that it’s the Bill that won’t be published before the next election.

Maybe you could suggest that Ministers should not complain about adverse judgements or fuel the antipathy toward human rights? Just a thought. I know they promise to never do it again and tell off politicians who do it, but…

The problem is that they aren’t actually interested in human rights in themselves – they are interested in what is politically expedient. If there are some votes in it, by all means yay for human rights. If there are votes in saying that human rights laws are being abused, let’s say that (whether it’s right or wrong), and start talking about the rights of the victim (which is stupid, because it’s meaningless in an adversarial legal system), be really vague about (rights and) ‘responsibilities’, and churn out ever more lawnorder legislation, particularly if it’s that nice primary legislation that gives them power to churn out secondary legislation.

Why is it OK for one person to take someone’s right to life away with murder but their family members don’t have the right to reciprocate and use the death penalty to take the murderer’s right to life. That to me is double standards. Personally, I see nothing illiberal about the death penalty, I think everyone should have equal rights.

I think prisons are a complete waste of time and resources. Society has to pay once in losing the victims life and twice in having to pay to keep the murderer from further harming other society members. It doesn’t work.

As for rehabilitation – what does that actually mean, a serial killer or rapist one day waking up finding G-d and seeing he was wrong – is that even good enough? If the crime was in a momentary loss of control – can that person guarantee it won’t happen again? No!

And finally, the reason Norway has a low prison population is because they have a very low or almost negative population growth rate – they’re not having kids they can’t afford or look after – and its these very kids that end up being criminals.

Its very apparent that most of Liberalconspiracy authors have not been victims of crimes and as such I don’t think have the right to speak. If most of victims are saying that they are not happy with the punishment then I guess you have to listen to them.

[84] I’ve been mugged and burgled, am I qualified?

You then say you want “good” policies (not shit ones) – meaningless, I’m afraid.
Good for who, gang-bangers, the family of Rhys Jones, the general public ?

Oho, I see those psychic powers are not improving. The telepathic approach is sadly not rare, but I’ve seen it done better – while I of course agree that we should all applaud and cheer for gang members who shoot children, I think it’s possible that we could punish them for their crimes without putting a cardboard box on our heads and pretending to be Judge Dredd. That may be an exaggeration, but it’s not a million miles from what would happen if Dan’s proposals were adopted.

…are you seriously suggesting that power should be centralised…etc>

No. I’m saying that such powers as we see fit to grant officials should go to a) the police and b) judges. It should definitely not be showered like confetti on pen-pushers and security guards. Further, creating a new class of “criminal unperson” by removing all of their rights is a really, really bad idea – as I said earlier, you only need to look at the number of new crimes New Labour have created in the past decade to appreciate how bad an idea this is.

Again you assert the public do not understand the issues.

Exactly correct – I don’t understand how doctors do heart surgery either, but that doesn’t mean that heart surgeons are awful snobs on the make, or that the layman could do a better job. I put it to you that you probably don’t cut your own hair, for instance. I only understand the basics of the law myself and am mystified by the intricacies of evidence, or how you’d establish mens rea.

If you doubt that the public don’t have a great understanding of the law, you could do what I did – get a job in a court, work there for a few years, then speak to your friends, family and work colleagues about major trials of the day. Trust me, it will be an eye-opener.

What’s wrong with pointing out that we should ALL accept a few basic responsibilities.

Responsibilities like our common responsibility not to drive our cars over bus queues, for instance? Or not to stab teenagers; not drop litter in the streets; not assault shop staff; not to throw bricks through our neighbours’ windows; sell drugs to their kids or steal their stuff?

Or are we talking about a new super-duper responsibility to OBEY THE LAW OR FORFEIT YOUR RIGHT TO A LIFE WITHOUT PAIN! or something?

“I do not believe there is such a thing as a perfect system but in my opinion we should put victims at the heart of any legal process (with certain safeguards and provisos).
Perhaps a dangerous crminal might sneak out a bit early but this is already happening and with devastating results.”

So you aren’t going to answer my question then?

“Why is it OK for one person to take someone’s right to life away with murder ”

I love this spinning and switching of our arguments. Who has ever said it is OK for someone to murder someone else? Please provide a quote.

“I think prisons are a complete waste of time and resources. Society has to pay once in losing the victims life and twice in having to pay to keep the murderer from further harming other society members. It doesn’t work.”

What a vague and unqualified statement. On serious crimes reoffending is between 20-40%, which means MOST criminals do their time and bugger off and become non-criminal members of society again. How doesn’t it work exactly? Oh…in reducing crime? Well that’d be because prisons are tools of justice and public protection, law enforcement and better social/life standards are the way to reduce crime. If you’d stop looking at punishment as a deterrent (which it isn’t) maybe you could look at prisons in the correct light.

“As for rehabilitation – what does that actually mean, a serial killer or rapist one day waking up finding G-d and seeing he was wrong – is that even good enough?”

Go away and learn what rehabilitation is if you want to engage on this subject, jesus…

“Its very apparent that most of Liberalconspiracy authors have not been victims of crimes and as such I don’t think have the right to speak.”

Yet with your lack of experience in prison reform, rehabilitation techniques, reoffending studies you somehow feel that you have a right to speak on the other side?

“most of Liberalconspiracy authors have not been victims of crimes”

Most people – ie. people in general, aka. the man on the street – have not been victims of crimes, either. Do they similarly have no right to speak, or does the ban only apply to liberals?

Lilliput @ 84:

Why is it OK for one person to take someone’s right to life away with murder but their family members don’t have the right to reciprocate and use the death penalty to take the murderer’s right to life. That to me is double standards.

a) It’s not “OK” for one person to take someone’s right to life away. That’s why we don’t kill murderers.
b) Isn’t it entirely obvious that in almost every single case of murder it’s going to be very difficult to be absolutely sure that the accused actually did it? There is someone in the news every month whose long conviction was overturned on appeal – not so easy if they are dead.

“Yet with your lack of experience in prison reform, rehabilitation techniques, reoffending studies you somehow feel that you have a right to speak on the other side?”

Yes Lee, I have a brain and thank G-d am not so open minded that its fallen out, so I can make a few submissions in a blog forum.

2On serious crimes reoffending is between 20-40%, which means MOST criminals do their time and bugger off and become non-criminal members of society again.”

Firstly, MOST, is not good enough to me when it comes to rape and murder and secondly, the point of doing time, is exactly what I think is the most useless, why must we pay for someone to sit in a cell when they have killed someone – its their mistake and yet I the tax payer have to pay for it. They made a mistake and they have to pay for it – not the rest of society.

Neil, I think that if you take a global point of view – most people in the world have been victims of crime. I think that you are under the delusion of the rosy released uk crime figures.

“Isn’t it entirely obvious that in almost every single case of murder it’s going to be very difficult to be absolutely sure that the accused actually did it?”

I absolutely agree, but that doesn’t mean that the death penalty is wrong, it just means its difficult to prove who did it. If we all thought like that ( and I believe that popular opinion is in favour of the death penalty) then we could work towards finding ways to make a case of guilt 100% certain.

Mike – colour me whatever political hue you want for having the temerity to suggest victims of crime should have a greater say in the judicial process (or at least have the option if they want it).
Your ad hominem is merely a form of labeling which fails to address the points being made.

To reiterate: nothing should prevent judges from performing their traditional role (and should hence allay the concerns raised in your psychopath scenario).
My suggestion would be to involve victims after the initial sentence had been determined (although there would need to be certain limitations) so they could modulate the verdict of the state (if they wanted to).
Obviously the degree of suffering but more importantly the general demeanor of the perpetrator would be very likely to influence them in their deliberations.

Unity may seek to negate opinions on the basis of job title – but imagine making such a cheeky suggestion because somebod was old, say, or female.

In Unity’s schema humans are depicted as passive agents who have not had enough done for them. For example, references are made to “improving education” – notice how this sort of woolly thinking tends to exonerate the offender from any personal culpability (because it’s now the schools fault).

Then employment is mentioned – up until recently we had plenty of jobs and training schemes, leaving aside the billions spent on welfare.
Did any of this matter to the gang-banger who shot Rhys Jones, of course not, such individuals cannot see past their next adrenaline rush, drug hit, or futile turf war.

So poverty must be to blame ?
But hang on, what about the millions of families on low incomes who are law abiding leaving aside the odd scam they might be tempted to get involved in to get from one day to the next.

Even the most cursory analysis of such a mind set tells us that little will ever improve because there is no EXPECTATION that it should, especially while sinister external forces deprive offenders of individual agency.
Of course such a gaping vacuum can only ever be filled by legion of experts since the victims of crime are simply not clever enough (as flying rodent will testify) to understand the machinations of the legal system.
Perhaps this is one of the reasons barristers must charge such exorbitant amounts of money to explain it to the plebs ?

Why is it OK for one person to take someone’s right to life away with murder…

Jebus. Yes, we all think it’s lovely when someone is murdered, and we all think the murderer should be held aloft and praised. For he’s a jolly good fellow…

…the victims of crime are simply not clever enough (as flying rodent will testify)

Invented bullshit about the points I’ve made isn’t really helping your argument here, you know.

“Yes Lee, I have a brain and thank G-d am not so open minded that its fallen out, so I can make a few submissions in a blog forum.”

good, I don’t disagree, now read back what you’ve written and understand why you’re a hypocrite.

“Firstly, MOST, is not good enough to me when it comes to rape and murder and secondly,”

When it comes to rape and murder only 0.5% of people reoffend. How “Most” does most have to be, considering it is people like you that stand in the way of prison reform truly taking rehabilitation to the proper levels that could eradicate that final 0.5%? Also, similarly, do you even read?

You said… “I think prisons are a complete waste of time and resources. ”

I’ve just shown you that far from being a complete waste of time and resources, 50% of the time or more prisoners stop being criminal after they’re released. Care to respond to that rather than avoid the point I’ve made?

“They made a mistake and they have to pay for it – not the rest of society.”

While the arguments over “value” are entirely subjective, the cost of housing all prisoners, including all the petty criminals Labour loves to lock up to look tough on crime, costs £100 a year per tax payer, roughly. Most of this money goes to the prison workers who would otherwise be out of a job. Maybe it’s just me but I’d rather pay £100 a year to incarcerate people than to be incarcerated. Maybe I just have a warped sense of freedom.

“Neil, I think that if you take a global point of view – most people in the world have been victims of crime.”

Comparing apples and oranges now too are we?

A&E Nurse @ 92:

But can you not see Lee’s point that justice will not be served equally (not even commensurately with the crime) not based on the criminal’s circumstances, which one might argue could affect sentencing, but based on the whims of the victims? As he says (repeatedly) victims who are forgiving will give lighter sentences than victims who are vindictive. Why should the victim’s mindset affect the sentencing of the criminal? It literally has nothing to do with the criminal and for each individual criminal it is likely to be an utter lottery as to whether they get a light sentence or a heavy sentence. It just makes no sense at all from any normative sense of ‘justice’ as opposed to ‘revenge’. All it allows is for the angry mob to tack a few extra years onto the sentence of an arbitrary set of criminals, regardless of those criminals individual circumstances.

“and I believe that popular opinion is in favour of the death penalty”

It’s not, try reading more.

“Neil, I think that if you take a global point of view – most people in the world have been victims of crime.”

If that’s true, why do you assume most Liberal Conspiracy contributors have not been the victims of crime?

Apart from “because they disagree with me”, that is.

I absolutely agree, but that doesn’t mean that the death penalty is wrong, it just means its difficult to prove who did it.

You can’t unless there are multiple witnesses, come close to being 100% positive of guilt. So even in your world of state sanctioned murder, we’d still never actually kill anyone. That’ll go down well with the daily mail.

To reiterate: nothing should prevent judges from performing their traditional role (and should hence allay the concerns raised in your psychopath scenario).

It allays no concerns, the judge is not privvy to the long term psychology of an individual, they have no idea if he will be responsive to rehabilitation to the same degree as another prisoner or not. Only those rehablitating and in direct contact to assess these people should be able to have the power to sway the authorities in terms of sentencing as they’re the ONLY people that can do so legitimately. Victims, under no circumstances, would be able to come even remotely close to the same.

Obviously the degree of suffering but more importantly the general demeanor of the perpetrator would be very likely to influence them in their deliberations.

Ah yes, so imprison the ones that know how to look sorrowful for less time, yes?

notice how this sort of woolly thinking tends to exonerate the offender from any personal culpability (because it’s now the schools fault).

It never removes culpability, it just aims to identify key facfors as to why someone would be more likely to choose to commit a crime and to limit those factors effects. It’s not about saying criminals are just poor victims, it’s about acknowledging that some things are likely to push them to behave more criminally and to remove that influence. Still too woolly for you?

Did any of this matter to the gang-banger who shot Rhys Jones, of course not, such individuals cannot see past their next adrenaline rush, drug hit, or futile turf war.

Have you got a point or are you just trying to be needlessly emotive?

Of course such a gaping vacuum can only ever be filled by legion of experts since the victims of crime are simply not clever enough (as flying rodent will testify) to understand the machinations of the legal system.

They may be clever enough, does that mean they’re impartial enough or…more relevantly, masters of time and space that can see exactly what will happen with an individual in the future?

a&e charge nurse,

Try attributing comments to the right person – it was not Unity who talked about improvements in education, but me. Indeed Unity hasn’t even participated in this thread so far.

In [ukliberty's] schema humans are depicted as passive agents who have not had enough done for them

Rubbish. You have clearly not even tried to understand.

Try re-reading what I wrote. I am talking about likelihoods. There is a correlation of poverty and crime, and lack of education and crime, and income inequality and crime. In other words, statistically it looks like a person is more likely to commit a particular type of crime if he comes from one particular demographic than another.

Of course the individual who choose to commit a crime is (in general) at fault. Of course he has freely made that choice. No-one reasonable believes otherwise!

But that is not to say that reductions in crime can’t be achieved by improving society outside of pure law and order issues – it looks like they can. So isn’t that something worth exploring?

We’ve tried churning out criminal justice bill after poorly drafted criminal justice bill and it doesn’t seem to be helping anyone but the lawyers, who we are gradually getting rid of because of cuts in legal aid etc.

I’m sorry Lee, I don’t have a problem with admitting when I’m wrong, but if everything is working so well with prisons, why exactly are we having this discussion?

Where did Lee claim everything is working so well in prisons?

Here you go Ukliberty:

“When it comes to rape and murder only 0.5% of people reoffend. How “Most” does most have to be, considering it is people like you that stand in the way of prison reform truly taking rehabilitation to the proper levels that could eradicate that final 0.5%?”

How on earth have you gone from what Lee wrote to what you claimed he wrote? Not so much a logical leap as an exit from the solar system?

Err, you’re not getting this, Lee, are you ?

Perhaps we could test your ideas against a hypothetical case ?

Lets imagine an 11 year old boy is walking through a car park (minding his own business) when a gang-banger shoots him in the head.

Now at this point, one or two commentators might claim it was the school’s fault, or perhaps there were fewer jobs in the area, or maybe the family income was below the national average – or why else mention such factors in the first place ?
Personally I find it very hard to accept such lightweight rationalisations but each to their own, I suppose.

At any rate a lawyer will be very quickly found for the accused affording the basis of a fair hearing.
To a certain extent lawyers defending such an unpromising case must rely on the wider community buying into the external forces made me do it mindset, perhaps comparing his client (for the gang banger already has a newly acquired status) to other gang bangers who fell prey to the same kind of lifestyle choices, and possibly led the shooter astray ?
If enough hankies are produced after this kind of predictable manoeuvre than the sentence will be probably be shorter – very few would argue that public opinion is not one of the variables in the type of sentences being handed out (the greater revulsion the higher the tariff, usually).

Now anybody who is regularly involved in criminal proceedings (police officers, social workers, etc) soon pick up on the deep cynicism that pervades much of our legal system, yet in your opinion, Lee, you still seem to believe in something called objectivity (a laudable aspiration perhaps, but a poor reflection on what REALLY happens behind closed legal doors).

I have no idea if you are simply being mischievous, or actually believe this kind of patent bullshit (re: objectivity) especially since the legal system has ALWAYS been something of a lottery, and one that involves a fair of amount of gaming, such as plea bargaining, etc.
As Robert Frost tells us: “a jury consists of 12 persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer”.

Set against such an iniquitous background the authentic voice of relatives would be like a breath of fresh air and critically, would establish a direct and meaningful link between the guilty and those who have been harmed by their actions.

the a&e charge nurse: It is fundamental to the system that victim’s receive some kind of satisfaction, not least becuse they hav eot over come the trauma. I’m with you on that.

ukliberty: Sure. I don’t even know what a green paper is. But I’ll be pleased if they do include this idea. As for your comment that they’re not intersted in Human Rights, then how come it was them who brought out the Human Rights Act?

Lilliput: That’s an interesting figure, that only 0.5% of murderers go on to commit another murder. If you were on prole board making the decision to free a murderer and knew that there was a one in two hundred chance that he’d kill again, would you release him? If you had to make that decision two hundred times, would you be responsible for the murder of one individual?

the a&e charge nurse,

Now at this point, one or two commentators might claim it was the school’s fault, or perhaps there were fewer jobs in the area, or maybe the family income was below the national average – or why else mention such factors in the first place ?
Personally I find it very hard to accept such lightweight rationalisations but each to their own, I suppose.

Who, in this thread, has claimed it would be the school’s fault, or due to low employment or income?

ukliberty – apologies for the mistake (addressing my response to unity, instead of you).

I have no idea how to reduce crime but then again neither does anybody else or we would have done it a long ago, wouldn’t we ?

The correlations you highlight have a superficial but melt away whe it comes down to the nuts and bolts of each case.

As mentioned earlier I would like to see victims playing a much bigger role in the sentencing process – not because I think it it would reduce crime but because it corresponds with natural justice rather than the artificial construct that Lee Griffin & Co are so enamored with.

As for your comment that they’re not intersted in Human Rights, then how come it was them who brought out the Human Rights Act?

They’re not interested in rights in themselves, they are more interested in them for political expediency. There may have been a few votes in it. But more importantly, it is something they can use to claim they are big fans of human rights, after all they introduced the HRA.

Let’s not talk about the attack after attack on fair hearings, jury trial and the rule of law; let’s not talk about detention without charge; let’s not talk about being the only country to have derogated from Article 5; let’s not talk about the reductions in legal aid; let’s not talk about churning out poorly drafted law and order legislation; let’s not talk about the growth in the use and type of civil orders to prevent crime (e.g. control orders, SCPO’s, etc); let’s not talk about the database state or surveillance society (why the hell are data sharing provisions in a coroners and justice bill?); let’s not talk about abuses of executive powers and processes…. I could go on.

But they did introduce the HRA.

I’m sorry if that reads as if I’m having a go at you – I’m not. But to claim they are interested in human rights when with every piece of legislation it seems they launch new assaults on rights… well, it seems an odd thing to claim.

Or look at the Freedom of Information Act. Yay for them, they introduced the Freedom of Information Act, it means they are big fans of the freedom of information…. except when they don’t want us to have the information.

LibertyUK: They haven’t attacked fair hearings. There is no attack on jury trial, and the rule of law has increased consierably under them so I’m not sure how that is an attack. There is no reduction in legal aid, though they would like to divert more of the budget towards civil matters rather than criminal (human rights are civil by the way). As for detention without charge, if the police don’t detain people while they gather evidence, then the evidence tends to be destroyed and the suspect tends to run away. Is that what you call Liberty?

Legal aid: “There has been a “massive reduction” in the number of legal firms prepared to take on poorer clients because of increased red tape and cuts in lawyers’ payments, as the government curbs legal-aid spending.

“The Legal Aid Practitioners Group (LAPG) estimates that more than half of the 11,000 lawyers’ offices willing to take on legal aid work less than a decade ago have either closed down or moved out of the field, leaving a shortage of help available for vulnerable people on modest incomes.” – Observer Sunday 1 February 2009.

This has been going on for years. Also people with tax credits face problems with means testing.

As for detention without charge, if the police don’t detain people while they gather evidence, then the evidence tends to be destroyed and the suspect tends to run away. Is that what you call Liberty?

Um, more referring to 2, 4, 14, 28, 90, 60, 56, 42 days detention without charge in terrorism cases, and the guys held indefinitely when we derogated from Article 5.

They haven’t attacked fair hearings

In fact they have, for example in immigration and terrorism cases, where ‘special advocates’ are appointed in order to argue on behalf of the ‘defendant’, who will not get to hear particular evidence against him.

Jury trials: what about the oft-suggested fraud trials without juries, Dan? And the rest.

And don’t forget inquests without juries, most recently raised again in the Coroners and Justice Bill.

I have no idea how to reduce crime but then again neither does anybody else or we would have done it a long ago, wouldn’t we ?

The correlations you highlight have a superficial but melt away whe it comes down to the nuts and bolts of each case.

Again, please stop looking at specific cases, let’s talk about likelihoods. Do you want to reduce offending and reoffending or not? Presumably you do. If so then you should probably support improvements in education, reductions in poverty and inequality of income, the legalisation and regulation of drugs and improvements in the treatment of chemical dependency.

Unfortunately, you appear prejudiced toward easy-to-sell law and order legislation rather than things that are a bit more complicated but are actually more likely to work (and by ‘work’ I mean reduce offending and reoffending).

As mentioned earlier I would like to see victims playing a much bigger role in the sentencing process – not because I think it it would reduce crime but because it corresponds with natural justice rather than the artificial construct that Lee Griffin & Co are so enamored with.

“Natural justice” is about fair proceedings, not victims choosing the sentence, and victims so involved will probably have no effect on offending or reoffending.

Basically you aren’t interested in useful outcomes, you simply want revenge.

Dan, I don’t understand what you meant by “human rights are civil by the way” and what you are referring to with that.

Perhaps also we should agree on a definition of “rule of law”. Because under my definition (Wikipedia is OK), they have attacked it.

Libertyuk: The reason people on low incomes cannot get free legal advice for civil law matters is because the criminal legal aid bill swallows up the rresources. The human Rights Act, housing, family, Benefits, all these things are civil lsw and civil law has been drained of money from criminal law cases swallowing it all up.
Rule of law is that legislated by parliament, and also that ruled by the courts in the clarification of case law.

You miss my point ukliberty.
Let us see if we can unpack your claims that I “simply want revenge” or that I’m “prejudiced toward easy to sell law and order”.

I assume you have arrived at these erroneous conclusions because I do not readily endorse the vague platitudes you keep repeating, although for the sake of the argument I accept that it would be nicer if society was more utopian.

To begin with i can’t help notice that you are unwilling to look at specifics – this posture has at least two immediate effects.
[1] arguments rapidly become mired in theoretical abstractions, or gravitate toward a hypothetical but unobtainable wish list.
[2] it avoids testing the validity of any claims.
For example, it is patently obvious, that most offenders have received (or at least been offered) more than decades worth of education and yet still have not been able to avail themselves of the opportunity this has afforded them.

This general lack of development is a huge problem, and authorities such as Harry Stack Sullivan commented on it over 50 years ago – some people simply do not respond to a LIFETIME of educative events, be it school, the workplace or in a prison rehab environment.

Turning to your second assertion that I am only interested in ‘revenge’, well I must admit I find it astonishing that you seem to have no grasp of the effect the judicial process itself has on ordinary individuals.
This process is often described as a secondary form of abuse (especially rape cases).
and in no small measure occurs, at least in part, to protect the ‘human rights’ of the accused.
I wonder why the term human rights has become such a loaded term nowadays, and why so many people are now increasingly suspicious of this slippy phrase.
No doubt you will accuse me of endorsing this point f view as well when I am merely commentating on it.

Be that as it may my motive is not revenge but has more to do with establishing a CONNECTION between the offender, the crime, and most importantly, the effects of the crime on the individual or their family.

Surely, the first step in any meaningful rehabilitation is for the offender to grasp and then accept responsibility for the consequences of their criminal deeds ?
By participating in sentencing the victim provides the offender with some very important clues as they begin the painful road to redemption ?

56. Bishop Hill .Excellent idea.
Dan McCurry. One aspect which seems to be ignored is that the difference in punishment between the most serious and least crimes appears to being diminished. Labour has put thousands of new laws on the statute books which has the risk of criminalising large numbers of people. 40-50 years ago the local beat constable could give a local a teenager causing a bit of trouble a clip round the lughole and the send him down the local boxing gym. Now ASBOs are handed out to teenagers for carrying out minor acts of mischief which if they break could send them to prison. However , at the other extreme those who commit murder can go to prison for only 15-20 years and rapists sent to prison for 5-10 years. If far more youth activities could be provided to reduce crime , the saying ” The Devil finds mischief for idle hands” comes to mind and then the tariffs for murder and rape increased; then there would a much more defined difference between minor and serious crimes. What concerns me is that a conveyor belt of punishment has been created. A teenager who breaks an ASBO goes to prison for 6 months. They come out and commit several burglaries ; they are caught and go to prison for 1.5 years. They come out of prison and this time carry out more serious burglaries but this time while trying to escape they kill someone. They are caught and sent to prison for manslaughter and serve 7 years in prison. It seems to me that creating ASBOs is in danger of creating a criminal class over trivial issues , in part because the Police have lost any discretionary power and yet we not treating violent acts
with sufficient seriousness.

If we had much higher tariffs for violence aginst the person;then I think people would be much keener to listen to suggestions for restorative justice for minor crimes or even using social/youth activities for dealing with delinquent teenagers. Tariffs of 50 years for murder, 35 years for manslaugher , 25 years for rape and 10 years for violent assault would convince people that punishing people for acts of violence was taken seriously. When restorative justice is considered then the work undertaken must be tough. In The Victorian era , a labourer had to move 20 tons of soil or rock a day to earn money. There is no reason why those undertaking restorative justice could undertake such activties as clearing out drainage ditches, repairing dry stone walls , digging peoples allotments or undertaking landscape contracting work. When many people see restorative justice work as nothing more demanding than picking up litter or cleaning off some graffiti, then they lose faith in the scheme.

101.

I’m sorry Lee, I don’t have a problem with admitting when I’m wrong, but if everything is working so well with prisons, why exactly are we having this discussion?

As ukliberty has said, I have never said that everything is working with prisons. Far from it, people like you stand in the way of true reform that could make prisons more effective. They’re also not completely useless as you claim.

105.

Lets imagine an 11 year old boy is walking through a car park (minding his own business) when a gang-banger shoots him in the head.

Now at this point, one or two commentators might claim it was the school’s fault, or perhaps there were fewer jobs in the area, or maybe the family income was below the national average – or why else mention such factors in the first place ?
Personally I find it very hard to accept such lightweight rationalisations but each to their own, I suppose.

I can’t be much clearer for your a&e, you seem to be the one “not getting it”, the presence of making a note of factors that increase the risk of criminality are not mutually exclusive from apportioning blame. It’s not such a flat 2d world that people have to either condemn an individual as evil or investigate what may have turned them to crime…you can, shock horror do both!

If enough hankies are produced after this kind of predictable manoeuvre than the sentence will be probably be shorter – very few would argue that public opinion is not one of the variables in the type of sentences being handed out (the greater revulsion the higher the tariff, usually).

You clearly think this (the practice of people influencing peoples opinion when it comes to sentencing) is wrong, I do too. But then, correct me if I’m wrong, a jury only delivers a verdict. A judge hands down the sentence based on their knowledge of the law.

Given you think it’s wrong, as I do, how can you sit there and claim a victim should have any sway on sentencing?

yet in your opinion, Lee, you still seem to believe in something called objectivity (a laudable aspiration perhaps, but a poor reflection on what REALLY happens behind closed legal doors).

Your cynicism is based on public and subjective involvement, and you expect me to retract from my argument that objectivity is better? I’ve not said objectivity is achieved, I’ve said it’s what should be used.

106.

the a&e charge nurse: It is fundamental to the system that victim’s receive some kind of satisfaction, not least becuse they hav eot over come the trauma. I’m with you on that.

Lilliput: That’s an interesting figure, that only 0.5% of murderers go on to commit another murder. If you were on prole board making the decision to free a murderer and knew that there was a one in two hundred chance that he’d kill again, would you release him? If you had to make that decision two hundred times, would you be responsible for the murder of one individual?

Ah, the eternal question….should I keep 200 peoplewho are rehabilitated and ready to be back in the world, because 1 of them is likely to commit another serious crime. Or, to put it more in to perspective, should I keep 1000 per year in prison rather than releasing them in case 5 commit a serious crime. Personally I can’t see how we can be a moral society by agreeing to effectively end the lives of 199 innocent people to protect 1 innocent person. If we’re going to go down that route then let’s chain us to our work desk right away.

116.

For example, it is patently obvious, that most offenders have received (or at least been offered) more than decades worth of education and yet still have not been able to avail themselves of the opportunity this has afforded them

Most offenders have also walked on pavements…when are we going to get away from broad and irrelevant comparisons?

This general lack of development is a huge problem, and authorities such as Harry Stack Sullivan commented on it over 50 years ago – some people simply do not respond to a LIFETIME of educative events, be it school, the workplace or in a prison rehab environment.

Over 50 years ago…so does this take in to account more modern developments in teaching that show some people that don’t respond to education in a traditional form do respond to different forms of that education, and/or different environments?

I wonder why the term human rights has become such a loaded term nowadays, and why so many people are now increasingly suspicious of this slippy phrase.

Hmm, let me guess….the same reason that people started arguing against immigration using examples of asylum seekers? (hint: it’s the media with the agenda)

Surely, the first step in any meaningful rehabilitation is for the offender to grasp and then accept responsibility for the consequences of their criminal deeds ?
By participating in sentencing the victim provides the offender with some very important clues as they begin the painful road to redemption ?

Other things, such as restorative justice, do the same thing with less ambiguity in the sentencing system. Why are you so hooked up on this tabloid pandering “solution”?

117.

It seems to me that creating ASBOs is in danger of creating a criminal class over trivial issues

Spot on.

Tariffs of 50 years for murder, 35 years for manslaugher , 25 years for rape and 10 years for violent assault would convince people that punishing people for acts of violence was taken seriously.

And you’re willing to suffer the expense and ethical ambiguity of this, of potentially keeping people in prison well beyond the time at which they are going to re-offend and in to a time when they have no chance of becoming productive again in society instead of a further burden, so that people essentially buy in to the fact that government takes crime seriously?

Charlie, serious question…do you honestly think that the public would not be able to come around to the idea of adaptive sentences based on rehabilitation if there was also enough public confidence in rehabilitation? That the only thing that they can agree with is a lock them up and throw them away mentality?

118 Lee Griffin. Keeping murderers and rapists in prisons is a price we should pay. Keeping delinquent teenagers out of prison will save money. My concern is that the differential between punishment of minor and violent crimes is being reduced, so that young people do not consider there is a difference between punching someone in the face and kicking them to death.

Society neeeds to show it’s disapproval of violence. Therefore the tariff needs to show it. I do not believe in capital punishment. The HofC removed capital punishment even though the vast majority of people wanted on the promise that life meant life. I do not believe that a life sentence should always mean life but it should mean at least 50 years. Most violent crime is undertaken by men between the ages of 18-35yrs of age. Therefore a sentence of 50 years does not always mean they will die in prison.

Too many people I have spoken with over restorative justice report cases of criminals doing very little during restorative sessions. Rehabilitation should follow punishment. Criminals need to be punished and the punishment should match the crime and then rehabilitation should occur. Where appropriate, compulsory literacy and numeracy classes should be imposed upon criminals. I would impose a rule where the prisoner had to achieve a certain level of numeracy and literacy in order to be released from prison. Drug and alcohol addicts would have to go through compulsory treatment. Prisoners would have to prove they were clean of drugs for at least 3 months in order to be released.

Politics is largely about perception. The reason why I posted an article about the Rhys Jones murder case was that the parents felt untterly insulted with regards to the shortness of the prison terms. I think too many on the liberal left are too often concerned with the criminals and not the victims. The saying ” Do not judge me until you have walked a mile in my shoes ” should be applied far more when discussing the feelings of victims,their families and neighbours. Calling people a vindictive mob just because they expect murderers to spend 40-50 years in prison I believe is counterproductive to developing an effective debate on crime and punishment.

During the Depression, poverty and educational oportunities were far worse than anything today and crime was much lower. Consequently poverty should not be used as an excuse for crime because it insults the integrity of those who are poor but honest. The development of lockable double glazing for houses, lights attached to movement sensors, burglar alarms, alarms for cars and immobilisers means that crime for the middle classes probably has reduced but for the poor then it has increased. One only has to look at the high insurance premiums for theft of cars and contents for homes in poor areas to realise that crime largely has andverse impact on the poor. In fact many poor people cannot afford home contents insurance . Therefore when a theft occurs they often cannot replace the goods stolen- the proportion of their assets which are lost can be a very high proportion of the wealth. Consequently, crime has a massively disproportionate adverse impact on the poor. This is why I cannot understand why the left liberal middle classes often take such an off hand attitude to the concerns of the victims , especially the poor . The development of gated communities for the middle classes, especially when close to poor areas shows how money can buy protection from crime.

Charlie: Just to clarify; Restorative Justice is a system copied from New Zealand Maoris whereby the victim and perpertrator are brought together in one room and the victim tells the offender of the impact on their life of the crime. Oddly enough, it hasn’t proven to greatly reduce reoffending but it is a massive comfort to victims who tend to belief that the perpertrator of their crime is a huge monster. By discovering that he is a vulnerable and badly educated idiot, they come to terms with their pain.
Community Punishment is the cleaning up of litter etc.
ASBOs are not handed out to youngsters who do minor mischief. ASBO law is modelled on harrassment, ie it’s a course of conduct likely to cause distress and alarm. It used to be that an entire estate could be made miserable by one or two individuals running amock. It’s good legislation. It’s also rare that people get sent to jail on Asbos but the process of the authorities telling the disfuncional youngster that his behavious is unacceptable, with a night in the police cells when he breaches, does tend to be effective.

ASBO’s were invented to get around the inconveniance that some people do things we don’t like but which aren’t illegal in themselves; they can criminalise acts for recipients which are perfectly legal for everyone else; and they are served on the basis of a ballance of probabilities to get around legal technicalities like the burden of proof.

You can now be sentenced to prison on SUSPICION of doing something which is actualy LEGAL and utterly trivial: for instance a 13 year old boy was banned from using the word ‘grass’ anywhere in England or Wales; a 16 year old was banned from wearing a single golf glove or showing off his tatoos; an 87 year old was banned from being sarcastic; a one-legged man with learning difficulties has been banned from begging; and a 15 year old Tourette’s sufferer has been banned from swearing.

They are also a badge of honour among some recipients.

They are piss-poor tabloid chasing legislation at its worst.

Shatterface: You say “trivial” but you use the court order as your example, when its what the offender actually did that matters. If a one legged man is banned from begging, it wasn’t because he had one leg or that he was just begging. In that case it’s highly likely that he’d set up home outside a tube station and hassled every traveller passing, day after day, month after month. He would have recieved numerous warnings and ignored each one.

118 Lee Griffin. Keeping murderers and rapists in prisons is a price we should pay.

It’s hardly a price for us, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a price for them more than anything..being ready to rejoin society and not being allowed to because of our vindictiveness and disproportionality when it comes to an individual view.

These people are referred to you as murders and rapists, as if that’s all they can ever be. We know that 99.5% of them come out of prison and no longer rape or murder…they are better people than they were before. At some point in prison they stop being criminals, and they start being ex-cons being incarcerated with little purpose.

Keeping ex-cons in prisons isn’t a price we should pay.

During the Depression, poverty and educational oportunities were far worse than anything today and crime was much lower.

That was a completely different time and society, not to mention how many of our youth were long dead in the battlefields…it’s hardly a balanced comparison. What I would be interested in historically is how much more prevalent the policing was, or at least how much greater the fear of getting caught was.

ASBO law is modelled on harrassment, ie it’s a course of conduct likely to cause distress and alarm. It used to be that an entire estate could be made miserable by one or two individuals running amock. It’s good legislation.

I might have to go find them, but I could have swore reports showed ASBO’s did nothing to reduce crime and, as Charlie (I think) said, increases a culture of crime in the youth. Also, haven’t people had ASBOs for stupid things like dog fouling?

I think too many on the liberal left are too often concerned with the criminals and not the victims. The saying ” Do not judge me until you have walked a mile in my shoes ” should be applied far more when discussing the feelings of victims,their families and neighbours. Calling people a vindictive mob just because they expect murderers to spend 40-50 years in prison I believe is counterproductive to developing an effective debate on crime and punishment.

That’s interesting, because the people that we’re calling a vindictive mob have *also* not walked a mile in those shoes…they are as devoid of knowledge (thankfully) about how it feels as we are, et they choose to arbitrarily set a line that can’t be reduced (though maybe extended) for sentencing.

The victim matters, that’s why people like me approve of things like restorative justice…but victims don’t matter so much that they can infringe on the rights of another person disproportionately. Do you, or anyone else (I’ve not had a single answer to this line of questioning yet) have any problem with letting someone go once it is sure they are no longer a threat and are rehabilitated? Do you not think that the public could back such an idea if they had confidence in rehabilitation? Don’t you think it’s a gross abuse of rights to incarcerate people that are, for all intents and purposes, innocent again because of a completely disproportionate fear over reoffending?

There will always be victims that want their perpetrator killed, then publicly displayed and eaten by the crows…we all accept that the victim’s opinion in this matter is utterly un-respectable, so why do we give other victims so much time over their broad desires that “they should be locked up for longer”, without any kind of definition as to what or why that length increase should be? Victims need support, they need to understand, they need help to move on…all of that can be done perfectly easily without increasing tariffs.

“In that case it’s highly likely that he’d set up home outside a tube station and hassled every traveller passing, day after day, month after month. He would have recieved numerous warnings and ignored each one.”

The dastardly criminal mastermind that he his, oooohhhh the horrors that the one legged begger wreaked upon commuters that would rather not be reminded of poverty in this country!

At this stage in the debate, it might be worth reminding us of what Winston S. Churchill said in 1910. It is as relevant today. And, given the amount of times it is quoted in full or in brief around the world in penal debates, I am shocked that nobody actually appears to be paying it any heed.

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country. A calm dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused and even of the convicted criminal against the State; a constant heart searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and an eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry, those who have paid their due in the hard coinage of punishment; tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if only you can find it in the heart of every man; these are the symbols which in the treatment of crime and criminal mark and measure the stored up strength of a nation and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it”.

jailhouselawyer: I’ve not heard the quote before, but I have read My Early Life which descibes his incarceration in a POW camp. I think it’s important to recognise that rehabilitation is lacking in the system, but this particular article is not about conditions in 1910, but the manner in which today wrong-doers assert the rights that they have denied to their victims; the right to have dignity, safety and be treated with fairness.

“but this particular article is not about conditions in 1910, but the manner in which today wrong-doers assert the rights that they have denied to their victims; the right to have dignity, safety and be treated with fairness.”

Yet aside from the “think of the children!!!” style arguments, you’ve failed to secure why it is that you think two wrongs should make a right?

Lee: I’m sure it will give you great pleasure to learn that you are the most tedious person I have come across in a long time. No one is suggesting that rapists should be raped or murderers murdered, but a person who has broken the rules of society has less right to receive the benefits of society. That’s all.

It was said in 1910, but it is just as relevant to the conditions today. I think that you need to read it very slowly, punctuation by punctuation, a few more times and reflect what is actually being said. It is easy to miss the message.

Churchill was the best Home Secretary prisoners ever had, for two reasons. Firstly, his inside experience as a prisoner himself during the Boer War taught him what most politicians fail to grasp. Secondly, he is the only Home Secretary to have halved the prison population, whereas successive ones have all increased the prison population.

I find myself agreeing with Lee Griffin’s comment “you’ve failed to secure why it is that you think two wrongs should make a right?”.

“but a person who has broken the rules of society has less right to receive the benefits of society”.

I beg to differ, have you not read either St Germaine (No2) and Raymond v Honey?

Dan,

Rule of law is that legislated by parliament, and also that ruled by the courts in the clarification of case law.

Never seen it defined that way before…

the a&e charge nurse

To begin with i can’t help notice that you are unwilling to look at specifics

Not in this particular conversation, because I can’t see how focussing on specific cases and blocking out everything else helps crime prevention in a general sense.

– this posture has at least two immediate effects.
[1] arguments rapidly become mired in theoretical abstractions, or gravitate toward a hypothetical but unobtainable wish list.
[2] it avoids testing the validity of any claims.

Wrong.

For example, it is patently obvious, that most offenders have received (or at least been offered) more than decades worth of education and yet still have not been able to avail themselves of the opportunity this has afforded them.

Yet again you misunderstand what I’m writing. I don’t know whether you are being deliberately obtuse or not but I think we are wasting each other’s time nonetheless.

a person who has broken the rules of society has less right to receive the benefits of society.

Not in law.

No one is suggesting that rapists should be raped or murderers murdered, but a person who has broken the rules of society has less right to receive the benefits of society.

You did suggest that a thief being caught red handed would have no right to complain about being assaulted.

“Lee: I’m sure it will give you great pleasure to learn that you are the most tedious person I have come across in a long time.”

If it takes being tedious to get people to answer their claims then I’m happy to be tedious. meanwhile, you’ve still not answered my claims, merely tried to divert with the preposterous pretense that “two wrongs don’t make a right” means murdering murderers. Just answer the question, WHY should society react to people that have inflicted on our rights by inflicting on theirs in any other way than to ensure they no longer inflict on societies rights?

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be fed. I’m just saying that they have less right to sue the prison governor on the basis that the water in the showers as a little be tepid.
As for Churchill’s remarks, they are entirely about character building. Should we have a system in which no moral framework exists? Is this going to make bad person a better person?

a person who has broken the rules of society has less right to receive the benefits of society.

Not in law.

“I’m just saying that they have less right to sue the prison governor”

I refer you to the answer ukliberty gave a few moments before…

not in law.

The whole point of the article is to propose a change in the law. We’re not discussing what is the current law, we’re discussing what the should be doing.

“Should we have a system in which no moral framework exists?”

No-one has said this…we really need to get you guys who like to water down people’s rights to understand the concept of “not black or white”.

No, not obtuse, ukliberty but I do think the divergence signifies a genuine failure on both sides to understand each other’s position ?

In this respect we mirror the criminal justice itself with offenders and victims suffering a similar pattern of fracture and incomprehension.
To my mind the current criminal justice system not only dehumanises victims but increasingly underplays the RELATIONSHIP between the commission and consequences of crime.
One of the main reasons perhaps is that the legal system (in common with other public services) has reached some sort of dysfunctional tipping point ?
This idea is certainly reflected in cynical reports from respected bloggers in the fields of education, health and the police force (unless you think they are all wrong as well).

One final point.
A few of the commentators here have expressed grave concern about the risk of inconsistencies in sentencing if part of this process was to be put in the hands of the victims.
I must admit that made me chuckle given the wide level of variation that already exists, so much so that studies are available demonstrating the iniquitous effects of “postcode justice” on sentencing.

Just for Lee – here’s a bit more on legal “impartiality”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/articles593173.ece

123 . Lee Griffin . What I meant was that we should accept the cost of keeping a murderer in prison for 50 years or life and rapist for 25 years. I do not think this is vindictive but a fair sentence for the crime committed. Violence by males tends to decline after the age of 35. Consequently by keeping murderers or rapists in prison for 25-50 yrs means by the time they leave prison their age makes them far less potentially dangerous. A murderer who goes to prison at 25 yrs of age is unlikely to commit violent crime at the age of 75 yrs .

I agree with you , society was very different in the 1930s.In the 1930s the Police were allowed large discretionary powers. Delinquent boys were given a clip around a lughole. Single Mothers ( their husbands had died in the WW1 or after it due to wounds) sometimes took their out of control sons around to the local police station to receive a belting from the sergeant. In many working class communities, the local hardmen tended to keep law and order. In the 1920s and 1930s there were plenty of men who were ex-servicemen, who had boxed in their youth and undertook physically arduous work. Consequently, there were plenty of men who would intervene if a crime was taking place. Many of the railway station managers and railway staff were former NCOs and therefore there was not much need for British Transport Police Officers. I cannot imagine there were many teenagers who would risk vandalising a railway station run by a former sergeant who had charged enemy trenches at bayonet point and boxed for the army. A builder from east London told me the story of when an elderly couple had their flat broken into. The two culprits were found and they were left lying on the staircase to the pensioners flat with their legs broken. This is partly why the Krays were tolerated because they kept order in their manor. The question is whether people want to return to the 1950s or earlier when the police had large discretionary powers and when communities were often self policed, rather than the State using ASBOs to deal with low level crime. .

In many inner city areas people would quite happily see the return of the death penalty for murder and castration for rapists. Remember the marches complaining about paedophiles in their midst. What I am suggesting is much longer prison sentences for violent crimes. Many people feel the pendulum has swung too far in favour of the criminal. Many people do not want the death sentence but do expect a life sentence to mean that or at least 40-50 years , not 15-20 years and 5-10 years for rape when they consider 25 yrs more appropriate.

[141] Charlie, C P Snow called civilsation “a coat of varnish”. It may be that you are playing devil’s advocate, but in any case present-day NCOs don’t charge with bayonets. And by the bye, what is that kids can get from boxing that they can’t get from judo?

142 . Mike Killingworth. Bayonets were ued in the Falklands, In Iraq ( at least twice ) and in Afghanistan( see TV reports- rifles are seen with bayonets attached). Perhaps, what I should have made clear was that there were plenty of tough men in the 1920s and 1930s who would act as a deterrent to to those considering criminal acts. I consider that teenagers in the 1920s and 1930s would be less likely to say ” You can’t touch, I know my rights ” or “What are you going to do about it ?” of “…. off” or attack a former sergeant who had boxed and had combat experience gained in WW1 than a puny or fat, unfit office worker in 2009. This is why many poor areas in the 1920s to 1950s were in effect self policed by the people who lived within them.

Judo is good as well. Brendan Ingle , the boxing coach from Sheffield and Sir Henry Cooper and both pointed out how boxing has kept delinquents from going to prison.

Sorry, incorrect link above – try this.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article593173.ece

Dan – Nicholas Blincoe puts flesh on the bones of some of your concerns.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/07/youth-crime-justice-cps

Thanks a&e. It was a really good article. What’s the name of your Facebook page?

Cheers, Dan – although a tiny minnow, I may be known in the medical blogsphere.

So, like Dr Crippen & Co I prefer to remain anonymous.
Cowardice, I hear you cry, well maybe, but you never know who will take offense (especially in the heat of a blog-war) and to a certain extent I fear censure from my employer, or the NMC – neither, I imagine would hold opinionated bloggers in particularly high esteem.

Will keep an eye out for your stuff, though – I enjoyed your piece here, as well as the perspective from the opposing camp.
Just one minor quibble – I do wish Lee & ukliberty would ease up a tad on the fisking ;o)

Ok. My page is under my name if you want to say hello.

Very decent of you, Dan – I might just take you up on the offer ;o)

A few of the commentators here have expressed grave concern about the risk of inconsistencies in sentencing if part of this process was to be put in the hands of the victims.
I must admit that made me chuckle given the wide level of variation that already exists, so much so that studies are available demonstrating the iniquitous effects of “postcode justice” on sentencing.

Interesting, I could have swore I just put the opposite argument to you…but then you have ignored pretty much every hard question posed to you.

123 . Lee Griffin . What I meant was that we should accept the cost of keeping a murderer in prison for 50 years or life and rapist for 25 years. I do not think this is vindictive but a fair sentence for the crime committed. Violence by males tends to decline after the age of 35. Consequently by keeping murderers or rapists in prison for 25-50 yrs means by the time they leave prison their age makes them far less potentially dangerous. A murderer who goes to prison at 25 yrs of age is unlikely to commit violent crime at the age of 75 yrs .

So why not put us all in some form of incarceration until after 35? If all you want to do is minimise risk then just lock us all up and reduce the risk to zero.

In the 1920s and 1930s there were plenty of men who were ex-servicemen, who had boxed in their youth and undertook physically arduous work.

I’d put it to you there are plenty of men, and women, who are ex-servicemen now. If you think society has gone soft I’d agree with you, but I don’t think that has anything whatsoever to do with prison.

As a matter of maybe no more than idle curiosirty, would contributors to this thread prefer to live in “hard” society or a “soft” one? Why do people draw this distinction in the first place?

Mike: I’d like to live in a society where people would not be scared by tabloids to the degree that people would rather the police impose curfews than actually engaging with people they think are being anti-social. Perhaps that’s not hard or soft, but where we’re right now is quite pathetic.

And the trouble with this is then people think that youth is out of control, when really they’re just being given control, and that somehow prison time or general incarceration and criminal records will change that fact without needing anyone to leave the comfort of their triple locked front doors.

150. What I have said s that in the period of 1920s-1950s many parts of Britain were self -policed by the people who lived within the communities. Therefore there was no need for ASBOs. In the period of 1920s-1950s there were plenty of physically tough men who had combat experience and therefore the physical strength, skill and courage to prevent boisterous children decoming delinquent teen agers and ending up criminals. As Sir Bill Morrison has said ” It takes a whole village to bring up “,

Sorry pressed wrong button . .. ” It takes awhole village to bring up a child”. Many people would now be scared of going up to gang of teenagers and telling them to stop littering or making a nuisance of themselves outside their homes. I do not think a a docker, weighing 12st and 6 ft in height ,who boxed in his youth and fought in the infantry in WW1 or WW2 would be particularly scared of the the youths and I do not think they would push their luck with him. Therefore many communities are no longer self -policed and low level crime is a problem in certain areas, the ASBO has been brought in. The ASBO , I believe is in danger of criminalising thousands of teenagers.

150. Lee Griffin. My comments on tarriffs only applies to violent criminals. There is concern held by many people that those who have committed violent crimes, especailly rape, manslaughter and murder have reoffended after only comparatively short prison sentences. As a consequence, many people consider sentences for violent crime are often too short.

151. Mike Killingworth. I do think the adjectives ” Hard ” or “Soft ” are approprite in describing society. What I think concerns people is the rise in violent crime.

152.Lee Griffin I do not think tabloids are necessary creating scare stories in all cases- they often reflect areas of Britain where violent crime has risen over the last 10 years. Local newspapers in many inner city areas are full of stories concerning violent crime becaus it is occurring in the areas they cover and readers are concerned about this issue. Are we saying the large numbers of teenagers murdered in London over the last 3 years is not a cause for concern? When consultants from A and E departments are interviewed on television, the number of knife wounds far exceeds that which has been reported to the Police. The consultants have publicly
expressed their concern at the very high levels of knife crime.

the a&e charge nurse,

One of the main reasons perhaps is that the legal system (in common with other public services) has reached some sort of dysfunctional tipping point ?
This idea is certainly reflected in cynical reports from respected bloggers in the fields of education, health and the police force (unless you think they are all wrong as well).

Those are the people I’m inclined to trust about what’s happening on the front line because they are on the front line. I know people and know of people in health care, in social work and in the police. Their complaints boil down to the same things – centrally imposed targets, rules, paperwork… essentially, they are prevented from getting on with their jobs. Targets can create perverse incentives, and sometimes, because the targets of each organisation involved are different, they can lead to unwanted outcomes.

We have the police, for example, complaining because the CPS won’t proceed with particular criminal prosecutions: the former think the cases have a chance of succeeding, but the latter don’t proceed because the chance isn’t high enough and they have to maintain a high success/attempts ratio.

Well, they all complain about each other!

(just to go off on a tangent, why on earth did the Government propose that untrained prosecutors should take CPS cases to trial? Surely that would only make things worse?)

Essentally my point was that the criminal justice system is not enough on its own. It is merely a factor in crime prevention. We can keep changing targets, we can keep changing sentencing guidelines, we can keep churning out more and more law and order legislation, we can keep coming up with ways to avoid the cumbersome machinery of the courts and make the executive judge, jury, and ‘executioner’ (I do not however believe that avoiding the courts is a good idea)… but it is not enough.

If we think we have too much crime we do need a different approach to criminals but it isn’t about getting rid of their rights, it’s about preventing offending and re-offending by tackling much harder, more subtle and complex problems. And a police officer is probably unlikely to think about potential solutions outside of policing – so I think we need to consult police officers and people who are imaginative about solutions. (In healthcare, however, I’m not sure much can be added by outsiders to preventing and treating health problems.)

Fine, you do not have the same opinions as I do in relation to income inequality, poverty, education… what about street lighting? Street lighting in some areas is more effective at the deterrence of crime than cctv in those areas (and of course vice versa in other areas). Indeed CCTV is a case in point – we spent lots of money on it and deployed it before we understood how it worked! It is ridiculous from a practical viewpoint – but then, these are politicians who are in charge, and they are interested in political expediency over what actually works. They want instant answers and easy-to-sell answers.

Even the way buildings and estates are designed has an effect on law and order! Crime prevention is a huge field. There are many factors – let’s look at them all, not just one or two.

And another thing (I am sorry to bang on)…

Why don’t we have many people at the top (if any) who have worked in the sector they are responsible for? What does Alan Johnson know about your field, for example? Or Ben Bradshaw? Or Dawn Primarolo? Or Phil Hope? Ann Keen and Professor Lord Darzi are the only Health Ministers with any experience of employment in healthcare. But Lord Darzi is a consultant surgeon and administrator – he has no experience of the front line. Ann Keen was a district nurse – that’s oneHealth Minister with experience of front line health care. Doesn’t that seem strange?

What do Jacqui Smith, Vernon Coaker, Phil Woolas, Meg Hiller, Alan Campbell, or Lord West, know about policing, security, and immigration (and now, ID cards)? Two teachers? I would be inclined to trust them in education (and GNVQ ‘co-ordination’ – hi Jacqui) but in home affairs?

I would be inclined to trust you about front line health care issues. But would you say you would be competent to make decisions about defence?

I’m sorry if caused any offence. But I am bored and quite frankly fed up with people thinking that being ever more tough makes a significant difference.

“Are we saying the large numbers of teenagers murdered in London over the last 3 years is not a cause for concern?”

Of course it is, but locking people up for increasing amounts of time won’t deal with the real problem that causes teenage deaths either. it may keep people that *could* (not would) turn out to be career violent criminals (as if there is such a thing) locked away but it doesn’t stop the situation that fosters and generates youth crime does it? As I said, unless you lock up all kids you’re not going to solve the violent crime problem without rolling up your sleeves and getting involved in some of this liberal ideology we’re peddling

“Many people would now be scared of going up to gang of teenagers and telling them to stop littering or making a nuisance of themselves outside their homes.”

For example, on this, I think comparisons to the 1920′s to 50′s are fairly obtuse personally, a different political climate, the fall-out of two wars, a completely different situation when it comes to views on society, life aspirations, etc not to mention a complete lack of the rigorous statistical (by historical standards at least) development….it all adds up to not being able to compare what we are going through as a modern country with that time, it feels more than slightly false to try and force the comparison.

People these days are physical, they are the sort that can impose if they need to. The idea every guy was built and competent at defending themselves is not based on any fact here. While kids in the 1920′s and 50′s had any sense of conflict beaten out of them now they have as much right to be conflict causing shits as the “adults” that do so down the pub, or driving to work, the problem here is attitudes that need helping, but returning to a vindictive and abusive manner of instilling that isn’t a step forward.

Despite something like 1 or 2 cases a year, even if higher it’s only be a few more instances, of people getting beaten up or (tragically) killed for confronting youths…everyone believes that if they (with the community) try to sort out this problem that they will get knifed for it. It’s not the truth, it flies in the face of the stats and…it ignores that you never hear reports of when the guy on your street goes out to tell the kids making noise to shut up, bugger off, or he’ll be calling the police and they move on.

We’re fed one half of the story, and with that people have progressively become more reclussive and scared. NOT because they lack the ability to deal with it, but because they have been painted in to a corner by the media to believe that they can’t deal with it.

Over at himmelgarten’s cafe there’s an argument that we need to increase acceptance of these annoyances being criminal, when really they’re nothing more than civil in nature. Something does need to be done but it is breaking down this exaggeration that the kids are out to get us, empowering communities to combat truly anti-social behaviour, and regaining the sense of community that we did once have. I think if nothing else we can both agree that communities are not what they were in the 20′s to 50′s.

[154]

151. Mike Killingworth. I do think the adjectives ” Hard ” or “Soft ” are approprite in describing society.

Care to say why, Charlie?

The whole point of the article is to propose a change in the law. We’re not discussing what is the current law, we’re discussing what the should be doing.

Indeed, sorry, went ‘off on one’ there…

157. Mike Killingworth. I think it is reasonable to say that for many people life has become more easy. A hundred years ago many people lived in cold and damp houses, undertook physically arduous and sometimes dangerous work. Children would often have to walk miles to school.
The low salaries for many meant that only a few mistakes of misfortune could result in a family in the workhouse. However, if one lived in an upper middle class or upper class household a hundred years ago , then life was quite easy. One just has to look at TV series such as ” Upstairs Downstairs ” or the “Forsyth Saga ” to realise how the few lived 100-130- years ago.

Therefore rather than saying hard or soft , I think it is more beneficial and clearer to be more precise about the exact conditions one is describing.

156. Lee Griffin. I think comparing today with the 1920s -1950s is not unreasonable as it is within living memory and I think we can learn from this period. I am not saying every guy was tough. What I am saying that after WW1 and WW2, there were far more many men who had undergone military training , boxed when young and were physically strong from arduous work and therefore were far better equipped to stand up to thugs. In addition, society was far more tolerant towards adults correcting delinquents.

I think the number of cases where people have been murdered or in the case of the lady thrown onto a railway line; for confronting yobs, shows there is a problem. In my experience people do not threaten violence if they think they would lose a confrontation. I have never heard of a thug boasting of how they were beaten in a fight.

I agree with you that communities are not the same as they were in the 20s and 50s

“156. Lee Griffin. I think comparing today with the 1920s -1950s is not unreasonable as it is within living memory and I think we can learn from this period.”

Compare away, just keep in mind it needs to be qualifies with the appropriate social and cultural changes that have been undertaken in the last three-quarters of a century. I’m not convinced as yet that your comparisons are qualified enough is all, though I do understand your sentiment.

“I think the number of cases where people have been murdered or in the case of the lady thrown onto a railway line; for confronting yobs, shows there is a problem.”

There are extremely few instances of these, and so to call them a problem is an exaggeration I feel. A concern, surely, but not yet a problem, thankfully. You’re right, people don’t brag about when they’re beat…this is why I can only take your claims with a pinch of salt. We don’t hear about any of the good community work done to calm down youths that are causing issues.

To me this is because we’re programmed to be alerted to the bad, the kids shouting and being anti-social. But when we confront something that is brewing do we realise what a good job we’ve done for the community? Probably not, we’re not programmed to think we have done anything abnormal there, nothing to strikingly get concerned about.

Anger is a moral good. Vindictiveness is one of the important forces acting to hold society together.

Those who clearly possess no capacity for revenge and who have no-one to act on their behalf must rely upon the good-will of strangers. They therefore face the very real prospect of slavery and death.

[161] Jonathan Swift did that kind of thing rather better, Horace.

[156] Charlie, it was you who used “hard” and “soft” to describe society, not me – although I accept that the way I quoted you wasn’t as clear as it might have been. Where I think we differ is that you seem to regard violence as innate in males, and therefore in need of proper channelling through contact sport and military discipline – which leads me to wonder if you don’t see men of peace as lacking in manliness. Anyway, if you are right, all the world’s philosophical and religious systems are wrong on the point.

Charlie, “young man helped elderly lady cross the road” doesn’t seem to be a story likely to be seen in the newspapers. Nor does “20m homes not burgled this year”, or “60m UK inhabitants weren’t knifed in 2008″.

162 . Mike Killingworth . I have checked my contributions but I cannot see where I have used “Hard” and “Soft” to describe society -would you please point it out. I do not think violence is inherent to all males. What I do think is there are a small percentage of males who are prepared to use violence and there are fewer people who are prepared to intervene to prevent violence . Men who have proved theor physical toughness and ability to fight are often peaceful- they have nothing to prove. Jeremy Vine mentioned this when he observed an attack on a train.Also attitudes have changed. Whereas 40-50 years ago when several people attacked a single person it was more likely to be perceived as cowardly, nowadays gangs seem far more willing to kick someone to death.

I think those who show violent attitudes would benefit from challenging their aggression through sports such as rugby, boxing or Judo or simpling undertaking a hard work. In the 19C , a labourer had to move 20T /day to earn a wage . Labourer who has worked for 5 days and then spent Saturday afternoon playing rugby would have channelled their energy and agression in a productive manner.

I am against compulsory military service and ASBOs. However , the saying ” The devil provides mischief for idle hands” is relevant. I consider the lack of arduous manual labour; clubs offering tough sports ( boxing , rugby and Judo come to mind); a lack of tough, strong and peaceful males who can act as role models and are willing to step in and prevent boisterous behaviour changing to agressive then criminal, is lacking. The way ASBOs are dished out is absurd. What many of the delinquent teen age males would benefit from, is a tough yet peaceful male saying to them firmly to go down to the boxing , judo or rugby club if they want to prove themselves physically not harassing a pensioner. This why Brendan Ingle has been so successful. There was very good article about the effectiveness of Ingle’s social work in the Guardian or Independent 10 or so years ago.

162 . (Mike Killingworth ). I have checked my contributions but I cannot see where I have used “Hard” and “Soft” to describe society -would you please point it out. I do not think violence is inherent to all males. What I do think is there are a small percentage of males who are prepared to use violence and there are fewer people who are prepared to intervene to prevent violence . Men who have proved theor physical toughness and ability to fight are often peaceful- they have nothing to prove. Jeremy Vine mentioned this when he observed an attack on a train.Also attitudes have changed. Whereas 40-50 years ago when several people attacked a single person it was more likely to be perceived as cowardly, nowadays gangs seem far more willing to kick someone to death.

I think those who show violent attitudes would benefit from challenging their aggression through sports such as rugby, boxing or Judo or simpling undertaking a hard work. In the 19C , a labourer had to move 20T /day to earn a wage . Labourer who has worked for 5 days and then spent Saturday afternoon playing rugby would have channelled their energy and agression in a productive manner.

I am against compulsory military service and ASBOs. However , the saying ” The devil provides mischief for idle hands” is relevant. I consider the lack of arduous manual labour; clubs offering tough sports ( boxing , rugby and Judo come to mind); a lack of tough, strong and peaceful males who can act as role models and are willing to step in and prevent boisterous behaviour changing to agressive then criminal, is lacking. The way ASBOs are dished out is absurd. What many of the delinquent teen age males would benefit from, is a tough yet peaceful male saying to them firmly to go down to the boxing , judo or rugby club if they want to prove themselves physically not harassing a pensioner. This why Brendan Ingle has been so successful. There was very good article about the effectiveness of Ingle’s social work in the Guardian or Independent 10 or so years ago.

[165] Charlie, you said that in post [151]!

If fewer people are prepared to “have a go” (I don’t think anyone’s ever measured it over time) that may also be because violence is more often perpetrated by groups on individuals rather than one-on-one and also of course the police advise us not to!

I have nothing against the kind of work that Ingle and people like him do. I simply think it is only ever going to be a small part of the solution. Of the “small percentage of males who are prepared to use violence” not all will be attracted to contact sport. And much of the good that the Ingles do may come from adopting a responsible attitude to drugs/alcohol – I have little doubt that he “lets go” of lads who – like Mike Tyson but without his skill – won’t deal with that part of their problem. And the (admittedly anecdotal) evidence is that drug and alcohol abuse is a factor in the overwhelming majority of incidents of criminal violence.

Mike Killingworth No 151 refers to a post by yourself. I do use the word “hardmen” in post 141, para 2 , line 6 but I do not refer to society as hard or soft.

Once again, the attack by groups which I agree is more common , is in part because it is no longer considered cowardly. The saying “Pick on someone your own size ” does not appear relevant today. However, a group of 4 -5 muggers attacking a tough man would end up in 2-3 damaged muggers. In the Independent , there was an obituary for a fomer SOE Officer who boxed at university. In addition,my Father tells the story of being attcked by a group of muggers, one who kicked his colleague in the face. The gentleman apparently shooked his head , picked the mugger up nd smashed his head against a wall, rendering him unconscious. The muggers ran off. The gentlemen had boxed at heavy weight in the Army and fought in the Commandos in WW2 and was in his 50s when the assault took place. My Father who was also in his 50s, another WW2 veteran stood his ground as he was fit man who had boxed at light heavy weight. There was another article about a pensioner , in his 60s who stopped two buglars even though they were threatened him with a chisel. He arested them as he had been an Olympic weightlifter and wrestler in his youth. What about the two pensioners ; one who intervened during a robbery on a jewellers and the one who tried to arrest an armed robber at a bookmakers. In both cases, able bodies males , decades younger, did not assist the pensioners. I would raise the suggestion that there appears to be more of a willingness to intervene to catch criminals from those in their 60s to 80s then those in their teens to 30s.

I agree with you that the Police have actively persuaded people not to interevene which I believe has contributed to the problem. At times , I think the Police believe the greatest threat is for the public to consider them irrelevant to preventing crime. In the 60s to 80s , a community which successfuly police itself was a threat to the existance of the Police- why pay for something which is not needed?

I agree with you that alcohol and drugs contributes to much crime but once again people with the ability and will to stand up to those who are violent I believe will reduce crime and the fear of crime. A contribution to the fear of crime I believe, is the belief that people will not go to the assistance of those who are being attacked .The victim is on their own even if there are passers by . I do not believe that my comments will only assist in the reduction of violent crime , not totally stop it. Ultimately, I believe that prison is the last resort for the violent who cannot be rehabiliated .

“The simple fact is that if you behave like a soft-touch then people will treat you like a soft-touch.”

A simple truth that the soft left have never been able to grasp.

“Even the way buildings and estates are designed has an effect on law and order! Crime prevention is a huge field. There are many factors – let’s look at them all, not just one or two.”

Pure mythology – if you control for the type of people in the estates then the alledged effect becomes insignificant. Fill a sink estate with yuppies and it will stop become a property hot spot, fill a leafy suburb with single parent families and it will become a no go area. People commit crimes, not buildings.

Matt, you’re dismissing an awful lot of published research on the shapes and layouts of buildings, there. There’s a notable “high rise” effect independent of socio-economic grouping, for instance, that appears to hinge more on having eyes at ground level looking out onto the street.

It seems trivial to suggest that some layouts are going to make the actual act of crime easier to accomplish and get away with – such as allowing non-residents easy access to every floor of a block of flats – and that buildings that are ‘built safe’ are less likely to experience crime because crime becomes more difficult to carry out. It’s just another way, like higher expected sentences or detection rates, that makes crime less attractive to potential criminals.

I’m not saying that there is a large effect, and that we should concentrate on building security rather than detection, but to say that there is no effect at all is, frankly, barmy.

[167] Sorry Charlie, I did seem to create a straw man there.

#170

Yes, I remeber as a psychology undergrad reading research to the effect that children living on the 4th floor, or above of tower blocks had poorer outcomes than those below or not in tower blocks. It was suggestedf that this mey be due to increased isolation/no view/increased risk of burgulary, none of which really stand any kind of serious scrutiny. Most of this reasearch was done in the 1970s “It’s nurture not nature and we can prove it” decade, what it didn’t say was that the difference was small, and a far more significant marker was being in a single parent family or having a criminally inclined father. Because that wasn’t (and still isn’t) what the left (and most sociologists are of the left) wanted to hear, they focussed on the buildings and the layout of the estate, as if the people in them were entirely shaped by their environment.
Agreed most council estates are grim soullesss places, where few, given the choice would choose to live, but while that may attract crimianls through making crimal activity easier and detection/apprehension, harder, the net effect is that crime is simply comitted in a different place, not that it increases/decreases. I don’t believe that the physical environment is in any sense a “cause” of crime, people don’t suddently become criminals because of where they live.
It’s a little like blaming a car crash on faulty brakes when the driver is drunk and driving at 100mph around the wrong side of the M25.

Matt: You’re half right and half wrong. In Britain poor people live in tall buildings and call them tower blocks, while in America millionairs live tall buildings but call them skyscrapers. One of the problems with sink estates is (as the name suggests) that they were poorly built, badly managed and quickly became a place where poor people were dumped. If you take the view that many poor people are poor because of a lack of aspiration and education, then it’s also true that these people are problemed enough that they are likely to get in trouble with the law.
If you give these same people good housing surrounded by people who do have aspiration then their kids are likely to grow up proud of their estate and seeing aspiration as normal.
Regardless of all this, society still needs to recognise that if you act like a soft-touch they will treat you as a soft touch.

Matt,

There’s a chapter in Tim Harford’s book “The Logic Of Life” that deals with rationality and criminality. There’s a great deal of evidence that making crime more costly (more difficult, dangerous, or more likely to result in conviction) reduces the crime rate. One of the ways that crime can be made more difficult is to, for instance, restrict access to tower blocks – or build new apartments so that there are many windows looking out on the bike racks, or whatever. Surely this is not contraversial?

To go full circle, no-one is trying to validate a “soft touch” argument here, and never has. This whole “soft on crime” nonsense is political posturing designed to make someone look weaker than they are. Liberals are not soft on crime, they’re soft on people that have done their time and are no longer a threat to society. They’re soft on people that are as yet simply misguided (such as first time petty criminals) rather than locking them up and indoctrinating them in to criminality.

The preposterous idea that you should still act “hard” on people that it is no longer apt to be hard on, such as your notion of removing their rights regardless of individual circumstance, is what we’re railing against, not that you don’t want to release criminals with a pat on the back and a wad of money in their pockets.

I’m not entirely certain why Matt, like some other contributors to this thread, seems unable to think in terms of anything other than absolute or extreme positions.

I have at no point claimed that socio-economic factors or architecture are ’causes’ of crime, I have at no point claimed we can prevent all crime, or all of a particular crime, by doing such-and-such a thing, and I think I’ve been pretty clear that it is the criminal who causes crime, that he ultimately bears responsibility.

What I’ve been talking about is risk, or probability, or likelihood. Can we reduce the likelihood of crimes being committed by doing things other than churn out more laws and assault our rights?

I think we can and that it’s well past time our beloved leaders looked at them.

And given that there has been more literature relating to architecture and crime control and prevention since the 70s, I suggest Matt doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

171. Mike Killingworth. In actual fact you raised an important point. I think this concept of “Hard ” and “Soft” when used to describe sentencing or society is very dangerous ; it tends to produce heat rather than light. People tend to fall back on their previously formed assumptions, rather than try to think through the complexity of crime.

My apologies for the many spelling mistakes: I appear to be suffering from Spellcheck dependency. In addition, my reference to the SOE officer which I mistakenly partially deleted should have said that he claimed to able to knock out two people before they drew their sidearms. What I hope to illustrate is that if a community has a few suitably trained men they can greatly assist in preventing violence by gangs and the fear it creates. Hopefully if people are less fearful they will be more willing to help those being attacked.

176.ukliberty. I think I remember reading an article in The Independent about a lecturer in Geography from King’s College, London who was very successful in reducing crime by altering the layout of estates . The LibDems claim success in reducing crime in Liverpool by making modest alterations to the design of estates. I think there is much opportunist crime and good design whether of cars, houses and neighbourhoods or people walking in a confident manner deters what I call the semi-professional criminal. As Wilde said ” I can resist everything apart from temptation”. Good design makes a pontential target less tempting to the semi-professional criminal. Obviously even he most advanced security systems will not deter the professional criminal i.e robberies such as the Brinks Matt , N.Ireland (£26M haul) and cash transfer station in Kent come to mind.

I’ve never read such utter happy clappy nonsense in a very long time. There is a reason our prisons are over flowing. There is a reason why you all seem to consider crime to be such a good thing – because you’ve never been victims of it. You’ve never been assaulted by a gang of yobs, had your houses broken in to or property stolen.

Those people convicted of a crime must be punished, or else the state becomes a worthless playground where an underclass not only exists and thrives, but also multiplies until there is nothing left worth defending. The very concept that someone who resists arrest should be “told off for being a naughty boy” as you seem to advocate is laughable.

Try being a police officer, try actually seeing criminals and the long term damage they do to the victims of their actions and then look around the nice middle class living room and ask yourself more sensibly if this left wing liberal claptrap has any point except to ruin our country.

Prison is not punishment. Your ideas scare me in the idolatry you show for such malevolence.

The best way to approach any criminal is from behind, as quietly as possible. If you try to approach them from any other angle they will see you and run off with the silverware before you can hit them over the head with your cricket bat.

“Those people convicted of a crime must be punished” … “Prison is not punishment.”

a) What is “punishment” then?

b) As you are arguing that only police officers or victims of crime are qualified to have opinions on justice, I similarly assume that you make your comments on the prison system as someone with great experience of such institutions. Would I be correct?