Law & Disorder

Observing the introduction of new laws brought in under the Labour government to tackle crime, it would seem to many that the party genuinely does want to lower crime rates across the country. The success of things like Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) in recent years and the proposals of new anti-terror legislation being put forward this month, Downing Streets image of a power-base ‘for the law-abiding majority’ has really taken off. According to government figures, violent crime is down, burglary is down, as is drug related crime; peel back this face of statistics and spin however and what really matters to the government seems clear.

The image of a British government working closely with the ministry of justice and indeed the judiciary, would seem to many to be a government capable of bringing the rule of law to the forefront of its aims, as well as serving out justice to those who have committed unlawful acts. The values of law and order are now, and have been for centuries, an essential part of our society, which we recognise have to be respected for the protection and maintaining of the greater good. The idea of putting an ordinary person in prison, taking away their liberties and rights, and restricting where they can and cannot go initially seems illogical. However put into that equation that the person in question has committed a series of violent murders and it would be logical to say, as a society, that the person in question must be locked away for the greater good, for the protection of the remainder of the law-abiding public. Furthermore however it would also be logical for the mother of the criminal to object to her sons’ imprisonment, as she would expectedly have emotional ties to him and would (in instinctive terms) naturally hope for the continuation of her sons genes.

It would seem that in recent years, the liberal core at the heart of the government has decided that the rehabilitation of prisoners should be a prime directive, and indeed that the spending of countless millions in this area is far better than its spending on the building of more prisons. Just look at the sentencing given out to convicted criminals today, what could be best described as a slap on the wrist for offences committed now, only two centuries ago would have either got you executed, deported to Australia or put on a prison-ship. Do you honestly think that armed gangs drugged-up to the eyeballs roamed the streets murdering people in those days and got away with it? Modern day criminals wouldn’t last a week in imperial Britain, and would certainly not be given the benefit of the doubt as is too often the case today.

To be fair it may well be that efforts have been made to put more ‘bobbies on the beat’, and to have more community officers roaming the towns and cities, but it would seem that only one card is being played here when two are needed. The introduction of more ‘lawful representatives’ is of course a small step in the right direction, but why bother using up resources trying to catch drug dealers when all they get at court is a nine-month prison sentence? The government has already concluded that the majority of offenders re-offend, hence their efforts to spend vast amounts of public money to ‘rehabilitate’ criminals. By doing this the government is sending out a signal to criminals, that if they commit a crime they will be put in prison for just the right amount of time they need to make criminal links, and will be treated with more recognition by society when they get out, ultimately being offered open arms and a clean slate at the expense of the ‘justice’ their victims expected to be delivered.

Why is it that the so called ‘justice system’ has in recent years dictated that to ‘serve time’ is to have your rights taken away for an allocated amount of time that is determined at your trial, which I might add is getting smaller by the year. Justice is no longer a fundamental principle of our society but a temporary gamble. It is a thing which was once successful in its aims, but has in modern-day Britain been mutilated and twisted to suit the needs and rights of the criminal rather than the victim. Where a breach of the law once had such a permanent affect on a criminal that he was stigmatised for life, fearful of the justice system and consequently resentful of his actions, it is now a badge of honour for many. It is time to acknowledge that there are some in our society who are naturally affected by the breakdown of traditional social values who cannot be affected by the ‘carrot’ approach. They have no morals, no parental guidance, and decide they will live by their own rules instead of the rules determined by law. They do what they want and do not fear either the police or the judicial system. The opposite is now the case; that members of the police force will not go into certain gang-controlled areas of the country out of fear, and I for one do not blame them, Justice is NOT prevailing in this instance and can certainly not protect them from harm.

The recognition of the authority and existence of gangs by our government is something which gives them status, and by the government practically showing that they can take no action further ensures that fear of the system will never again be imposed on criminals. It takes a certain mind-set to knowingly commit a crime, and by making the rights of the criminal your prime target you ensure they take your liberal kindness for weakness. From their point of view a television, daily access to a free gym, and a pool table is not a punishment, but a bribe in the hope that they will see the kindness of the government and not re-offend once out. Fear of the justice system is something which used to be essential to the safekeeping of the country as a moderate, law-abiding society, and in many parts of the world this is still the case. I do not necessarily advocate the use of amputation as a practical means of punishment, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the fear instilled by the consequence of stealing in Saudi Arabia has hugely affected the country’s stealing statistics; and that the implementation of such a punishment has ensured a lot less people have their possessions stolen. In today’s liberal, free-thinking Britain however, instilling fear into the minds of potential criminals is something which is frowned upon for some obscure reason. If the power of fear should be held by anybody it should certainly not be by those who roam the streets looking for vulnerable people to mug, or by drug-dealing gangs whom the police are too afraid and too under resourced to arrest. Surely the ends do in fact justify the means in this case, and that the retaking of the power of fear by the justice system is very necessary for the maintaining of the greater good.

Perhaps being safe to wander the streets here on the Isle of Man at any hour is largely down to (among other things) the fear of heavy sentencing given by judges, and the right to anonymity of the criminal denied by law, ensuring the fear of potential stigmatism by the community. Most if not all convicted criminals here have their names and addresses printed in the local newspaper at the time of sentencing and their right to parole is largely controlled by a system in favour of protecting the public. This could be tempting fate but we have not yet seen the arrival of left wing ‘do-gooders’ intent on reforming the system in favour of criminals, and I hope still that this will never happen.

I do look forward to the day when the rights of the law-abiding majority not to be mugged, burgled, conned, raped or murdered outweigh the rights of any criminal in Britain. Perhaps pensioners currently living in high-crime areas would be much safer in the knowledge that local drug-addicts dare not snatch a bag for fear of the repercussions of their actions, or indeed of the governments moral duty to protect the law-abiding majority at his/her expense.