One of the major news stories of the day is the chief inspector of constabulary's criticism of the way police deal with complaints of anti-social behaviour.
Our family has fallen victim to both anti-social behaviour and criminal activity in recent years, despite living in what might be considered a low-crime area.
On both occasions the perpetrators failed to be punished to any real extent. We hardly felt justice was done. Even when the police were 100 per cent supportive the courts failed to dish out what we - and the police - deemed a suitable punishment.
Indeed, one police officer involved expressed surprise that we hadn't taken the matter into our hands and dished out some personal retribution: "I would have done by now," he admitted.
Our problem is that in our post-war desire to ensure a liberal and caring society - a laudable aim it has to be said - we have gone way too far. Consecutive Governments and the EU have brought in so much legislation that the punishment seldom deters the crime.
The fact that Peter Sutcliffe is even contemplating asking for parole is an indication of that. He should know that for his crimes there never should be a chance of parole.
Whenever you read or see anything about the Kray twins there's always some old East-ender who's prepared to stand up and say "but it was much safer to walk the streets in those days".
In no way am I advocating a return to the days of mobster rule, but it can not be denied that the punishments meted out by the twins and their entourage were deemed sufficient to persuade those of an unpleasant disposition to keep themselves to themselves: step out of line and you know what will happen!
It wasn't a case of the punishment fitting the crime, for that is an arbitary level determined by somebody in an Ivory Tower, and is liable to be changed at a whim. It was a case of the punishment being sufficient to PREVENT the crime.
And this is surely what's missing these days. It's a gamble; you might get caught and if you do what's the worst that can happen? A few hours' community service? A fine which you can probably pay weekly over a period of a few years?
That's hardly likely to act as a deterrent. However, a guaranteed loss of liberty and privileges might make them think twice. We should not be too concerned with their 'human rights', but concentrate more on the human rights of the victims. Like people's basic rights to live in their house, on their street, without gangs of rampaging yobs making their lives a misery, as was reported on Radio4 this morning.
Clamping down on criminal or anti-social behaviour should not be regarded as fascism, any more than liberalism should be seen as defending the right of a thief to go about his business without fear of being struck by a home-owner's golf club.
I count myself as a liberal; I like the idea of a free society, but that society should be one in which we can live without fear of becoming a victim. I am at a loss to understand why so many victims are suddenly pariahs because they fight back.
If the country's Government and law courts supported their 'rights', the need to fight back would be reduced. It's about time the balance on our much-heralded scales of justice was corrected.
No comments:
Post a Comment