« Francis Maude launches final plans for the London mayoral selection | Main | Second front now »

Comments

Tony Martin was obviously a few years before his time.

People know it is wrong to steal and hurt people. They know it is wrong because they wouldn't like it if it was done to them. Yet they still commit crimes against other people. Poverty is no excuse - plenty of people in (relative) poverty do not commit crimes. To quote the amusing Henry Root but in a serious conext: criminals don't commit crimes because they are deprived, they commit them BECAUSE THEY ARE WICKED.

Time to make District Judges and Circuit Judges accountable. It is incredible just how unsupervised they are by the Lord Chief Justice. It would not hurt to have some of these Barristers subjected to public hearings before appointment or even election.

Or that practising Barristers like Cherie Booth can be Recorders and practising Solicitors practising Deputy District Judges.

This is a very cosy little world which needs a few cobwebs blowing away and unleashing of McKinsey on the Courts Service.

Not McKinsey - or the like - please...!

I agree. As I argue here, Ian Blair has sustained one too many scandals.

As for prosectution, which has been mooted by some, I'm unsure as to whether there's sufficient legal grounding. We simply don't know enough yet, though we certainly do know enough to call for Blair's resignation.

Personally I don't really see what was wrong with the proposed Home Office campaign (other than, from their point of view, it was politically stupid). Part of the responsibility for crime does rest with society as a whole: for our 'walk on by' attitude; for the general culture of disrespect; for the way we bring up our children. Surely Conservatives don't want to say it's all government's fault. To the extent that it is their fault it is partly because they take on too much responsibility. Saying that neighbourhoods should take a stand chimes perfectly with our messages of 'trusting people' and 'sharing responsibility'.

As for the judges, while I agree some sentences are too short we should be very wary of joining tabloid populist campaigns. The independence of our judiciary is a much greater benefit than the cost of lenient sentences. And it is hard for them to sentence people for much longer until the prison system is expanded. It's virtually at breaking point.

TimB @ 17.41: "Saying that neighbourhoods should take a stand chimes perfectly with our messages of 'trusting people' and 'sharing responsibility'."
Yes, I agree but not to the extent of "mixing it" with a gang of knife carrying youths. What this government has got so badly wrong is that, whenever there is an outcry about something, Blair simply passes new legislation, so that none of the departments have time for due process. Until the police get back to policing - in the old sense of the word - there is really little point in phoning them when there is only a potential or minor incident. They won't come out.

I think the law ought to change to return to the old ideal of citizens and police having identical rights, and police merely being paid to do what any able-bodied person can and may do at a pinch. The right to defense of self, other, and property ought to be enshrined in law. Any and all adults ought to get the right to apply reasonable chastisement and moral correction to yobs. And, the ancient right to go lawfully armed should be reasserted. As recently as the 19th century, Britons could buy guns at the ironmonger. They were withdrawn amid fears over anarchists, but look who has the guns now!

We should never go down the route of making the law part of the political system.
The law in this county must be free and the judges independant so they can administer as they see fit.
It is up to Parliament to make law and the justice sysyem to administer it and I am afraid that once you bring politics into the law you get corruption and bad law.

Julian Morrison at 19:21

Quite right. It's also worth pointing out that before sidelining of the constitutional right to bear arms, it was a legal requirement for members of the public to intervene if they saw a felony being committed. In this way policing was primarily the responsibility of society, rather than the state.


Bravo! Allow me to carry a gun and I will willingly bear the responsibility of intervening to prevent unsocial (and worse) behaviour. As for expecting me to challenge a disorderly youth when there is a possibility of having a knife pulled on me... forget it!

The point of course is that it only takes a few people to be carrying guns and the law breakers are much less likely to be inclined to carry on their behaviour with such brazen defiance. Confronted with a group of people, they have no means of knowing which, if any, are armed.

"As for expecting me to challenge a disorderly youth when there is a possibility of having a knife pulled on me... forget it!

The point of course is that it only takes a few people to be carrying guns and the law breakers are much less likely to be inclined to carry on their behaviour with such brazen defiance."

The trouble is, instead of having a knife pulled on you, you could quite easily end up having a gun pulled on you instead.

Daniel Vince-Archer: unlikely. That would require a petty thug with backbone, which is more or less a contradiction in terms.

The core point about guns, is that good, responsible citizens outnumber crooks hundreds to one. Those odds only look safe when facing people who've been disarmed and made defenseless by law.

"...once you bring politics into the law you get corruption and bad law."

Oh, please: do you really mean to say you don't have corruption and bad law now? It's an utterly naive and self-destructively deferential fantasy to imagine politics can be kept out of the law, or that it currently IS kept out of the law. What you already have is a highly incestuous and utterly unaccountable little clique running your legal system that regards most of the public that it nominally serves with a degree of contempt it barely even bothers trying to conceal.

Perhaps it's my own bias as a former staffer for the judiciary committee of a state legislature in the US, but there really IS such a thing as too much judicial independence. Power without accountability is tyranny, plain and simple: that it wears judicial robes keeps a great deal many from noticing.

At least two of the fundamental problems of dealing with crime and its punishment are 1.over the last 50 years, a combination of welfarism and a Left-leaning intelligentsia has helped breed a substantial underclass that feels no responsibility to society; and
2.punishments are devised by the well-meaning middle-classes, thus measures that would cause distress and remorse to them (prison, fines, publicity etc) are imposed on a group of people who either couldn't care less or regard such measures as merit badges.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker