Crime and Criminality

Of course, the full facts aren’t known yet. But this assault case has echoes of racism.

I’m sure a comment like 'I'm going to fucking kill you black bitch' would have rendered such an attack racially motivated. So why is it 'I'm going to fucking kill you white bitch’ isn’t?

It’s time the law was applied equally; not just in this case; not just in racist attacks; but when a benefits defrauder is treated differently to an MP that fiddles their expenses; when a rioter is given a more severe sentence than might be expected normally for the same offence; when a crime against profits is treated more severely than a crime against the person.

And especially when crime is always seen as the evil within a person rather than the evil within an unjust society.

TEENAGERS TO CHALLENGE UNIVERSITY FEES RISE

There is little I can say about THIS report. A fantastic opportunity for two students to show this sham government they are WRONG WRONG WRONG!

I can only hope the judges, who after all are supposed to be unbiased and apply the law as it is, not as governments would like it to be will do just that.

(Please be aware that BBC links are subject to change and may not point to the report intended)

JUSTICE MUST MANIFESTLY BE SEEN TO BE DONE

Ken Clarke is proposing not locking up so many people because 'prison doesn't work'.

It is significant that the kind of low level offenders that Mr. Clarke intends to deal with without recourse to custodial sentencing are the relatively low level offender that are more likely to offend against residents of or visitors to poorer areas.

It is significant that in 2000 Mr. Clarke voted in accordance with a commons proposal "That this House condemns the Government's policy of giving prisoners special early release on the Home Detention Curfew scheme;"

I remember a time when assaulting a police officer would have meant a custodial sentence if found guilty, irrespective of mitigating circumstances or severity of the assault.

I remember when assaulting anybody would most likely attract a custodial sentence.

I remember there were far fewer assaults then. 

I accept this is anecdotal and there could be many other reasons why custodial sentencing gives the average man in the street the impression of fewer offences and makes him (or her) feel safer. But the point is it has an effect on the confidence of the public and this alone is good reason to lock up offenders. It also means that while he (or she) is behind bars, the only other people that he will assault are other criminals.

Lord Hewart CJ said:"...a long line of cases shows that it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done." 

That is to say, no matter how fairly, legally and equitably proper a decision is made IT MUST BE SEEN TO BE SO! This involves a principle of perception. If a decision is perceived to be unfair, unjust or improper, then that decision cannot be acceptable. 

And so this should extend to sentencing. If the public perceives that convicted criminals are free to continue to commit crimes and that locking them up stops them committing crime, then we should lock them up.

One Good Man and (hopefully) True

For the first time in 350 years Englishmen face a trial without the benefit of a jury, the case presided over by a judge.

Will this mean an end to justice? Is it the first step away from our adversarial legal system toward the European model?

The men concerned are charged with serious crimes. (I'm not going into the details as I want to concentrate on the principles. You can read more detail HERE). Three trials have collapsed, the last of which was halted because of suspected jury fixing.

But should we remove the right to jury trials? I believe this to be a dangerous precedent. Better, in my view to house the jury securely so that here can be no question of interference and give the men a fair trial.

There are also the dangers inherent in leaving guilt and legal procedure and precedent in the hands of one judge.

I also suggest that if a jury can be omitted from the legal process on the grounds they may be at risk of being influenced, how long before a jury trial is suspended because a defence counsel may adversely affect the outcome of a trial by persuading a jury a defendant is not guilty?

The case is well put in the conversation between William Roper and Thomas More in 'A Man for all Seasons':

"William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"

And there lies the danger. If we dismantle the law to convict the guilty, how will the law protect the innocent?

Baby P Murderer Assaulted

Baby P, who we now know as Peter Connelly died with 50 injuries including broken ribs and a broken back. His mother's boyfriend, Steven Barker has been attacked in prison, felled with one punch. He got off lightly.

Would You Give a Community Order for Child Rape?

A sixteen year old boy, who cannot be named was given a community service order for molesting a seven year old boy. Eight days later he abducted and raped another five year old boy.

I could go on and on about the stupidity of the law, the ivory towers of judges, deterrents, justice and revenge, etc. etc. But I dare say I will only be repeating what others are already saying, what you are already thinking. So I'll just say this is what happens when discipline is removed from schools, a country goes soft on crime and criminals are rewarded instead of punished.

Full Story

Violence at G20- but it wasn’t a protester....

Another video of a policeman apparently assaulting a peaceful protester has appeared on YouTube. It seems a (hopefully) small number of officer's use these protests as an excuse to throw their weight about and attack members of the public who genuinely feel a need to peacefully protest. It's no wonder the violent hijackers of such events get away with it. The police should concentrate on these thugs, or is that asking too much?

The most disturbing thing I see here is two alleged assaults (that we know about) by officers whose identifying numbers are obscured. It does smack of a conspiracy, that there is perhaps a group of nominated officers whose role is to either quell or provoke crowd disturbance. This may be confined to a small number of officers, with or without the tacit agreement of their superiors or even the government. Or it might, more frighteningly be a deliberate course of action, instigated and supported at the highest level to give credence to banning all forms of protest.

I accept that looking at the whole video there seems to be some disturbance in the crowd, but this is quickly aggravated by the apparent assault. And in all honesty, the woman appears merely to be speaking to the officer trying to make some kind of complaint and he just isn't interested.

The officer concerned has been identified as a member of the territorial support group, who are allowed to use violence but it must be proportionate to the circumstances. A woman half your size complaining doesn't seem to me to justify a slap in the face and a whack with a steel baton.