Riot 10-Point Plan – A Look Back

It’s now been one week since I published my blog post setting out my 10-point plan for dealing with riot offenders. Shortly after I posted the blog, it was announced that David Cameron was returning and the police, CPS, courts and – to some extent – politicians, have done a fairly good job of restoring order and delivering justice to those responsible for the terrible criminal acts.

In the past week there has been an endless stream of news and opinion in relation to the riots, which has pervaded every aspect of life. The riots have been analysed and discussed from legal, human rights, social, racial, class, colour, geographical, national and individual viewpoints. No stone has been left unturned. I’ve read many of these discussions and articles with interest and others I’ve read with a “yeah, right” sort of grin on my face. Overall, it’s good to see that the degeneration of the British social image has been handed most of the blame, with the rest shared out amongst irresponsible parents, poor education and social deprivation.

These are all causes which must be addressed in the coming months, years and decades. In the meantime, however, those responsible for the criminal damage, robbery, intimidation and – in some cases – assault and murder, must be held accountable for their actions and repay the debt they owe to society. This brings me back to my admittedly over-the-top 10-point plan from last Monday.

Below is a recap of the 10 things I wanted to see done, together with an appraisal of how close reality came to making it happen.

1. The names and faces of all those involved should be published in a national newspaper and through other social media as a naming and shaming exercise;
The Reality: I’m very pleased to see that reality has come very close in this particular instance. The MET set up an online database showing photos and CCTV images of those they wished to speak to in relation to the riots. The national newspapers have also done their part in helping bring people to justice and social media invited people to post images that they had gathered and help identify those who were caught on camera. 9/10

2. All those who vandalised and destroyed property, looted or caused some other criminal damage, should have their own property damaged or confiscated (i.e. break house windows, confiscate and crush their car or bike) and they should cover all related costs;
The Reality: It goes without saying that I didn’t really expect this to happen. This is more an “eye for an eye” approach to crime-fighting than a civilised answer to the rioting. Nevertheless, it would give some satisfaction to those who lost businesses, cars, or other property to know that those responsible had also had something that they loved taken forcefully from them. One thing that has happened is a robust response from police and the courts, which have stayed open through the night to process criminals and have been doling out justice admirably. 2/10

3. All those involved should be required to participate in the clean-up and all non-expert repair works;
Reality: One of the most uplifting and heart-warming consequences of the terrible riots has been the amazing response from the local communities and the clean-up operations. The ‘broom army’ photo is now a famous representation of this force for good and the hard work and kind donations from across the County continue in earnest. Of course, it’s entirely possible that some of those helping to clean up had been involved in the riots and had a guilty conscious, but there’s obviously not been any enforced labour. I continue to honestly believe that some sort of ‘social repayment’ scheme is one of the best ways to deal with petty criminals and is more beneficial than a jail sentence which costs money and achieves nothing, or a fine which never gets paid. 5/10

4. All those involved should have an on-the-spot fine of £100 and if there is quantifiable evidence of damaged caused, they should cover that damage. Payment should be due within 30 days, or bailiffs will be sent in to seize property;
Reality: The Magistrates Court has admirably been harsh in its dealing with the criminals, choosing to refer cases which may require a sentence beyond its powers to the Crown Court, rather than just quickly doling out the easiest sentence. There have also been reports of fines being charged and payments having to be made before the person is allowed to leave court. These are good results and a clear sign that those involved will not get off lightly. Of course, we’re only hearing the headline-hitting statistics and it still isn’t clear what’s being done with the majority of the minor offenders. 7/10

5. Any individuals involved who are in receipt of state benefits should have those benefits withdrawn for a period of 6-12 months (so long as withdrawal doesn’t affect children);

Reality: When I posted my blog entry last Monday I honestly didn’t appreciate how much demand there was for people involved in the rioting to lose their state benefits. To my mind, it remains a perfectly logical response. We, as taxpayers, fund the state which then supports those who are disadvantaged or unable to support themselves for the time-being. So, when they attack us as a society, is it not proportionate to revoke the benefit we provide to them? Those who are imprisoned lose their benefits and, to my mind, those who are also guilty – regardless of whether it’s a slightly less serious crime – but not imprisoned, should also lose them. The online petition for rioters to lose their benefits, has now gone well beyond the 100,000 signatures required to trigger a parliamentary debate.

Iain Duncan Smith has today said that he is looking into those found guilty but not imprisoned, losing their benefits and would like to see it exercised by the courts rather than by Government. I would strongly re-iterate my view that this should not impact on children (i.e. through child support benefits) or those with a recognised disability or illness (although you’d hope such people hadn’t been involved anyway) but in most cases, such as those on job seekers, the benefit should be revoked and re-routed to help fund the repair and rebuilding required in those communities affected. 6/10

6. All those found responsible for serious criminal damage should be imprisoned for term appropriate to the severity of the crime;
Reality:As stated above, the courts have taken an admirably robust and hard-line approach in handing down the most severe sentence possible for a given crime. 8/10

7. Anyone involved who is found to be a recent immigrant (say 10 years) should be expelled from the United Kingdom;

Reality: This is another point which I never expected to see implemented but which I think is relatively fair. I would start by emphasising that this isn’t a racially grounded argument and I am not suggesting that immigrants should be dealt with differently to those born in Britain. However, just as it’s logical to revoke certain benefits from those who attacked society; so I think it is logical to consider expulsion from the UK as a possible punishment, if proportionate to the crime committed. The majority of immigrants enter the UK either to work or study. If instead they have caused damage and loss, their right to live in the Country and enjoy its benefits, should be revoked. 0/10

8. Anyone involved who is employed by the State should be fired;

Reality: There have been mutterings that this may be exercised by Councils and schools, although I don’t think there have been any firm dismissals as yet. I still think that this is an appropriate punishment for those employed by the State (whether in councils, civil service, hospitals, or schools), who have committed such a public crime. 6/10

9. Everyone should be given a permanent criminal record;
Reality:This one seems to be a given – if not necessarily permanent, all those charged will have a criminal record. 9/10

10. A temporary curfew should be imposed for all areas currently affected.

Reality:Again, this was widely discussed whilst the riots were ongoing but was never actually implemented. It isn’t relevant since the riots have now stopped but I do think it is a legitimate technique to minimise the risk of trouble starting and also to help protect innocent people from getting caught up in the problem.

All in all,

I don’t think my blog demands were too far off the mark. One thing that has hit home is that – however belated it may have been – the response to the rioting and looting has been effective. The main question mark now is how well the Government, and society as a whole, can bring about longer-term changes to help prevent these sorts of things from happening again.

Capital Crime

It’s one of those age-old issues which never disappears – Capital Punishment. Earlier this week the ‘No. 10’ petition system, with such popular petitions as “make Jeremy Clarkson PM”, was given a shake-up and has now been linked to Parliament. Petitions which prove particularly popular will be reviewed by a Parliamentary committee, which will determine whether the issue should go to a debate of MPs. There’s obviously no guarantee of any legislation at the end – just that the issue will be discussed.

One of the most popular issues thus far has been the re-instatement of Capital Punishment, which was outlawed in the UK back in 1965. One petition has almost 3,000 signatures and there are numerous duplicates demanding the same thing.

It’s quite well known that numerous Countries around the world still reserve the death penalty for the most serious crimes (and some even for seemingly trivial crimes). Wikipedia tells us that 49% of the world has abolished the death penalty, but 22% still allow it in law and actually use it in practice. 25% still have it in law but have not used it for a considerable time. Perhaps the most high-profile Country is the USA, which carried out approximately 50 executions in 2010. As of 2011, 34 of the 50 US states still exercise the death penalty.

I once took part in a debate on whether Capital Punishment should be brought back and argued in favour (because it was my role, not because I genuinely believe it). As part of my argument, I found some figures on the costs of housing, feeding, rehabilitating and, in some cases, protecting criminals and argued that these could be reduced significantly if the death penalty were used. I also took a religious slant – eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth – and the right of the family to justice on behalf of their murdered or permanently damaged love one(s).

These are the sorts of sensationalist arguments we always hear in connection with the pro-death penalty movement, together with grand claims that it will increase deterrence, lower crime rates and improve our society.

But let’s get real for a moment. The Death Penalty could only ever be used for the most severe crimes – murder, terrorism and related ‘torture’ crimes (crimes against children, rape). These crimes obviously only account for a miniscule proportion of the total crimes committed. Therefore, the impact on prison costs will be minimal, if there is any reduction at all (think about the added costs of facilities, putting appropriate procedures and mechanisms in place etc.) and it’s also difficult to see how it could benefit society as a whole. Sure, it may act as a deterrent, but murder is rarely a rational crime – it is either done suddenly and for an irrational reason or by someone with the propensity for committing such a crime in any case.

It may make people feel a little safer, but would they really feel better about themselves? Is it right to take someone’s life? George Orwell has a great essay which is worth reflecting on. The fact is that death is a waste – you are achieving nothing from committing murder – the person responsible is gone, ceasing to exist, nothing but cold, dead corpse – how does that hold them accountable for what has happened? How is it better than having them locked away, their freedom lost, for the rest of their lives. It is an ‘escape’ from life not a punishment FOR life and would make us as a society no better than those who commit the crime in the first place.

My suggestion would be to put every supporter of the death penalty in front of a murderer or other committer of a serious crime and give them the option to pull the trigger, or lever, or insert the syringe – BUT on the condition that they themselves must die for taking another’s life. I wonder how many would remain steadfast and still go through with it – I would hope that it would make them see the value of life and the value of being the better person.

The answer to our problem doesn’t lie in reverting back to age-old methods. There is no evidence that the death penalty made British society better in the past, there is no evidence that the American states still using it are better off for it and there is no evidence that it’s re-introduction would bring with it any material, ethical or sociological benefits. The fact is that only a minority of criminals on ‘death row’ actually get the sentence carried out on them.

Instead, the answer is to improve British social roots, continue to push for better education, parenting and social support, to prevent crime from occurring in the first place. Obviously crime, and murder in particular, will still happen – whether by some genetic malfunction or social dysfunction, some people will always take the life of another without a blink of the eyes – and in those cases, they should be dealt with harshly.

Rather than focusing on bygone punishments, we should be pressuring the Government to fix our prison system. Increase judicial sentencing powers, build more prisons and get rid of the ridiculous luxuries we hear about so often. Prisoners should have access to food, drink, exercise and rehabilitation (counselling, discussion groups) but that should be it. No pool tables, no televisions, no magazines, no entertainment of any kind. They should also be accountable to society as a whole – bring back national service or some other ‘payment to society’ practice. The unfortunate fact is that we’ve now gone too far ‘the other way’ and things are too lenient. The answer lies in fixing those things that have become broken, which will help silence those fixating on the methods which never worked to begin with and were rightly cast aside.