American sociologist Charles Murray wrote an article for The Sunday Times in 2004, soon to be published in book form by Civitas, in which he argued the case for retributive justice. The principle of retributive justice is that the criminal justice system should punish criminals for the harm they have inflicted on their victims, and that the punishment should be proportional to the crime. This is the primary aim of criminal justice. Not reforming criminals or even preventing further crimes by incarceration. Both of these things may happen, of course, and there is much to be said for them, but they are secondary aims. Murray also argues for reforms to the way in which trials are conducted. He believes that former charges and convictions should be made known to the jury if they are for similar offences. He also argues that the system needs to draw a firm distinction between those he calls Outlaws and Citizens. Habitual criminals (Outlaws) should not be treated as if they have the same rights as the law-abiding (Citizens). Citizens who are threatened by criminals should be able to retaliate in any way they deem necessary to defend themselves.
We know that there is very considerable public support for the latter proposal. Last year the Today programme asked listeners to vote for any change in the law they would like to see, and the winning proposal was one that would give householders unconditional rights to defend themselves and their property. A private member’s bill was introduced into parliament to implement this. Private members’ bills have no chance of becoming law unless the government of the day supports them, and the Blair government had no intention of supporting this one. However, the government was sufficiently rattled to issue details of all cases in which criminals had tried to have their victims prosecuted for defending themselves. The intention was to set our minds at rest: these things supposedly hardly ever happen, and the law generally supports the victim against the criminal.
It would be more difficult for the Home Office to make that case today. Linda Walker, a 48-year-old teacher of unblemished record, was subjected to an 18-month campaign of yobbishness and intimidation. The police were unable to deal with it. Finally, stressed to the point of losing control after an attack on her car, Mrs Walker confronted a group of youths outside her house with a pellet pistol which she fired six times into the pavement. There is no suggestion that she intended to hit any of her tormentors. However, she was sentenced to prison for six months on a firearms offence.
As a result of public protest and media coverage, she was released after six weeks, but with her conviction upheld. To make matters worse, she has now been sacked by her school. Her case is the subject of an appeal. Whether or not she is re-instated, she has suffered considerable trauma, while her tormentors have suffered nothing except the sort of media attention they probably relish. One of them told a Sunday newspaper that ‘the daft bitch’ should have got ‘ten ****ing years’.
According to Mrs Walker: ‘The law is on the side of these criminals and yobs and not the victims. They have all the rights.’ Who can disagree?
Comments (7)
I have excellent news for the vast yob constituency that inhabits the Leeds hinterland. I moved to this city 18 months ago and was pleasantly surprised by the speed and efficiency with which I was able to get my business established. However, the sheer omnipresence of yobbish behaviour has finally got the upperhand and I have decided to pull up stakes again – good riddance I hear them echo! I might have endured these gangs of drunken louts (speciality monkey grunts and macho posturing), being spat at by those glowering thugs who bravely hunt in gangs at nightfall and having my car robbed twice if there was ever a glimmer of hope that things might improve. No chance – people who are certainly old enough to know better indulge in this type of behaviour, condone it in the young (sometimes their own children) and encourage it as part of the very fabric of Yorkshire life. Added to this is a police force with one of the lowest crime detection rates in the country and we have a perfect formula for trouble and strife – terribly boring if it were not so dangerous. The only tiny consolation I can glean is that this blight of urban life is even more prevalent around Huddersfield and Halifax (what a menagerie that is!). Also Leeds FC fortunately continue to underperform and the size of marauding gangs around the train station for home games is slightly lower than might be expected in the unlikely event of gaining promotion. Before coming here it was brought to my attention that nobody famous ever came from Leeds (apart from a few footballers) – I now completely understand why – civilisation has yet to touch down in this neck of the jungle and the herd instinct rules!.
Posted by antiyob | September 21, 2005 11:40 AM
Posted on September 21, 2005 11:40
I fear the comments above [Chas may 23] highlight the very real threat to a civil society based on neighbourly trust and civil respect. Our current criminal community have nothing to fear, therefore nothing to respect. Their actions are euphamistically termed 'low level', and arouse little interest in the local police circles already heavily engaged in pushing pens or watching cctv. In the case of Linda Walker who else but she would have defended herself and her property? In respect to the term óutlaw', I heartily agree. Criminals exclude themselves voluntarily from the protection of the law. They have no status in law and are entitled only to reasonable treatment and a retributive sentence. If they reoffend, they go back to jail with an increased sentence. I see no arguement to this logic.
Posted by Nelson1114 | August 17, 2005 1:17 AM
Posted on August 17, 2005 01:17
Firstly, the aim of prisons is 3 fold. Rehabilitation, Retribution and Deterrence. Any system that does not incorporate all 3 is doomed to fail.
Secondly, the suggestion of 'dehumanisation' is prefoundly offensive. This process, is Stalinist/ Nazi in all aspects. Humanity can never be removed without dire consequences. It leads directly to the gulag and gas chamber. After all, if they aren't 'real people' then should there not be a final solution. It is very offensive.
Thirdly, if the state is a leviathan with laws based upon injustice and not the contrary then 'Outlaw' is a basge of pride quite different from the 'criminals' who impose immoral laws and break moral laws.
Fourth, the British state has been historically unarmed, the rise of guns after the war having to be countered, we can see a long pattern of not having guns, of not needing to, as we largely lived in a benevelont and just society. This was one of the principal differences leading to the American revolutions success - we did not understand that every man had a gun.
Fifth, that woman who was sent to prison was foolish. She had no proof, she should have filmed them. The people who had harassed her were said not to be the same as those she shot at, she had simply been driven to the end of her tether and struck out. This kind of retributive vigilante justice is both immoral and inept. She should have been lightly sectioned to calm down, not imprisoned. The police should have a function to teach people how not to be bullied and how to build a file against people committing offences against you. They also should have taught her toleration! Something she clearly lacked.
Posted by Chas | May 23, 2005 11:25 PM
Posted on May 23, 2005 23:25
The term "Outlaw" as far as I can ascertain is one that dates back to at least the Saxon times (i.e. over 1400 years).
Their pragmatic approach was that if someone decided the law did not apply to them and they went around doing exactly what they wanted, then they could not have it both ways. If they would not obey the law, they were not entitled to the laws protection. Hence they were a "wolfs head" and anyone could kill them without fear of the law. They had no rights to the law's protection. They were outlawed for a specific period within an area and if they managed to survive they were considered rehabilitated.
Nowadays, with the overwhelming media coverage, it would be simple to publicise the names, addresses and crimes of a drug dealer (for example) who has chosen to destroy complete communities solely for their own selfish gain and allow them to take their chances with those whom they had offended against. .
Of course, the British had the right to self defence and the keeping of firearms until the 1950's when an unelected Home Office decided unilaterally that the grant of a firearms certificate for self defence was not a good reason for issuing one. You can't take the law into your own hands apparently. Which beggars the question, in whose hands does it lie?
It has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable (and even unreasonable) doubt that the State cannot be everywhere at once to protect individuals, and it has likewise been demonstrated that it has no inclination to do anything about criminal activity.
I wonder why?
Posted by PhilB | May 18, 2005 8:24 AM
Posted on May 18, 2005 08:24
As Churchill said democracy is the least worst altrenative, a dictatorship that was "BENEVOLENT" to begin with would soon change onto your average run of the mill tyrant.
What is needed is for the public to recognise that we are in effect working within a left wing (liberal?) enviroment where the so called elites of the beed, guardian etc rule the roost. (aided and abetted by the tory party.
until we actualyy do away with this clique things will never change
Posted by steve shackleton | May 17, 2005 5:54 PM
Posted on May 17, 2005 17:54
This article is related very strongly to the previous one but raises a different comment from me! In the blog concerning voting preferences, I wondered about the wisdom of an equal vote for everyone. In the context of this blog, I wonder about the wisdom of having the criminal justice system entrusted to what is generally referred to as the " liberal left".
My reaction to these and other concerns make me wonder whether democracy is such a good thing - perhaps a benevolent dictatorship would be preferable; but then, how do we pick the right person!!!
Posted by Henry Kaye | May 17, 2005 3:13 PM
Posted on May 17, 2005 15:13
I can't see what there is to argue with here. If somebody does something wrong in society then the principal aim should be to indicate that it was wrong through the punishment. Anything else as a priority action tends to anarchy in my view.
Posted by AW | May 17, 2005 1:22 PM
Posted on May 17, 2005 13:22