The Home Secretary has announced that the law governing the degree of force that householders can use to protect themselves against criminals will not be changed. Instead, the government will run a campaign to tell us what the appropriate response should be. At the same time, a private members bill introduced by Roger Gale MP to allow householders to use whatever degree of force they consider necessary against intruders has failed after being described by Home Office Minister, Fiona Mactaggart, as a recipe for a "spiral of violence and retaliation". The bill reflected the preferences of a poll of listeners to the Radio 4 Today programme.
Once again, an attempt to reform the criminal justice system in a way that reflects the concerns of ordinary citizens has been defeated by those who run the system, and who are convinced that they know what we need better than we do.
One of the reasons for the high level of dissatisfaction with the police and the courts is the feeling of absolute powerlessness that we have in this country. Nothing we think makes any difference, as the criminal justice system is above politics. This sounds good, in the sense that we have always prided ourselves on having a system that can’t be manipulated by party politicians to their own short-term advantage, but in reality it means that it is beyond the ability of voters – citizens – to influence it. In the USA people elect their district attorneys, some judges and, of course, their mayors, for whom the appointment of the police chief is one of the most important decisions they will make. If crime is felt to be out of control, a lot of people are in danger of losing their jobs. In Britain, the authorities can just tell us that the ‘fear of crime’ is the problem, and that crime is really falling. Nobody believes this, but so what?
The situation is made worse by the rock-solid consensus amongst the political parties that no radical reforms are needed. A new initiative here, a bit of extra funding there, is felt to be the answer. Whichever way you vote at the general election, it is unlikely that anything much is going to be done about crime, unless the political landscape suffers a seismic shift.
Comments (8)
According to the DPP there have been 11 cases in 15 years where 'victims' of burglary have been prosecuted. The present law is therefore not leading to a 'spiral of violence'...as these stats show.
It is quite self evident that on occasion a Government would appear to be following 'public opinion', and appear to be ignoring it on another occasion. The judgements made, in either event, may be to our individual taste or not. That is called government. What is the problem?
Posted by stardasher | January 14, 2005 5:22 PM
Posted on January 14, 2005 17:22
If, as Ms McTaggart says, the proposed amendment would lead to a spiral of violence and retaliation, and if, as the Home Secretary says, the proposed amendment is unnecessary because the present law already achieves what is required, then presumably the present law must also be creating its own spiral of violence etc etc. Clearly, the only way of avoiding such an outcome is to inform all potential burglars that no resistance will be offered. Perhaps the Home Secretary's new guidance will consist of exhortations to leave our front doors unlocked so as not to provoke a violent response and to place a sign saying `this way'.
Posted by A.McNeill | January 13, 2005 12:55 PM
Posted on January 13, 2005 12:55
Simon has it in one.
The tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny, which is why pandering to public opinion is not always a good thing. However, claiming to act in the interests of the public on one topic, whilst claiming to know best on others is inexcusable. It simply illustrates the arrogance of those we are unlucky enough to call our leaders.
Posted by EU-Serf | January 13, 2005 10:51 AM
Posted on January 13, 2005 10:51
Paddy Carter is quite right in suggesting that public opinion can be misrepresented by the various media but I do feel that government has a responsibilty to explain WHY it acts as it does. Insofar as defending ones property is concerned, there has been considerable expression that householders should not be prosecuted for using force to defend their property. If government feels that this is dangerous then they should be prepared to spell out in precise terms WHY they think this, instead of just saying that it would be in appropriate. We might then be persuaded. I do think, however, that government must always be mindful that it is SOCIETY that requires laws to be enacted to defend their property, safety and sovereignty. Government has a responsibility to explain EVERY piece of legislation that it enacts. I'm not even sure that frequent use of referenda would not be a desirable extension of our democratic parliament.
Posted by Henry Kaye | January 12, 2005 7:01 PM
Posted on January 12, 2005 19:01
Why is public opinion important to our law makers only when it suits them? Anti-hunting MPs always told us of the public's support for their cause, but on issues such as capital punishment the public are told they do not know best.
Posted by simon | January 12, 2005 6:56 PM
Posted on January 12, 2005 18:56
First off, I wouldn't be too sure you or any of us know what "public opinion" is. The popular press is a distorted mirror of reality at best, especially on this issue, and your experience from people you know can't be trusted either because it is likely to reflect your social niche, political alignment or whatever.
Secondly, since when did we want policy to be straightforwardly matched to "public opinion"? Politicians tend to get castigated either for being out of step with public opinion or for caving into it. Public opinion wants fox hunting banned, hanging reintroduced, smoking banned, taxes down, goverment spending up, Jerry Springer operas censored, "fair" not free trade, and so on.
Thirdly, exactly what changes to the laws regarding the use of force against intruders do you suggest that might be so effective in reducing the level of crime in the UK? I'd be surprised if marginal changes in self-defence legislation would have much of an beneficial effect on criminal behaviour.
This post reads like an incoherant rant, in my humble
Posted by Paddy Carter | January 12, 2005 4:41 PM
Posted on January 12, 2005 16:41
It's unkind of you to keep reminding me of my deep political frustrations! It might be of some help if these know-it-all politicians/civil servants were to offer a detailed explanation of their philosophy so that it can become the subject of national debate; better still if they would bow to the fact that laws should be the product of society's will and that their role is merely to enforce those laws.
Posted by Henry Kaye | January 12, 2005 4:25 PM
Posted on January 12, 2005 16:25
Why not bring back hanging. we'll vote for the judge that'll hang 'em all. Just give us the power...
Posted by stardasher | January 12, 2005 4:07 PM
Posted on January 12, 2005 16:07