Light sentences and lax prison discipline are both expressions of the perfectly well-founded view that large numbers of those convicted, vastly in excess of the numbers that have always existed at any given time, are in fact innocent. We need to return to a free country's minimum requirements for conviction, above all by reversing the erosion of the right to silence and of trial by jury, and by repealing the monstrous provisions for anonymous evidence and for conviction by majority verdict. And we need to return to proper policing. Then we could and should return to proper sentencing, and to proper regimes in prison. But only then.
Restoration of the supremacy of British over EU law. Requirement of a resolution of the House of Commons (itself elected so as better to represent the breadth and depth of public opinion, and accordingly from candidates selected by means better involving the general electorate) before any ruling of the European Court of Justice, or of the European Court of Human Rights, or of the "Supreme Court", or pursuant to the Human Rights Act, can have any effect in the United Kingdom. Restoration of British overall control of our defence capability. Removal of all foreign forces and weapons from British territory, territorial waters and airspace.
Abandonment of the existing erosion of trial by jury and of the right to silence, of the existing reversals of the burden of proof, of the provision for conviction by majority verdict (which, by definition, provide for conviction even where there is reasonable doubt), of the admission of anonymous evidence other than from undercover Police Officers, of the provision for conviction on anonymous evidence alone, of both pre-trial convictions and pre-trial acquittals by the Crown Prosecution Service, of the secrecy of the family courts (although that is improving), of the anonymity of adult accusers in rape cases, of any thought of identity cards, of control orders, of the provision for Police confiscation of assets without a conviction, of stipendiary magistrates, of Thatcher's Police and Criminal Evidence Act, of the Civil Contingencies Act, of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, and of the Official Secrets Acts.
Raising of the minimum age for jurors at least to 21. A return to preventative policing based on foot patrols, with budgetary sanctions against recalcitrant Chief Constables who failed to implement this. Police Forces at least no larger than at present, and subject to local democratic accountability, most obviously though Police Authorities, but if appropriate by means of elected sheriffs. Restoration of the pre-1968 committal powers of the magistracy, along with the pre-1985 prosecution powers of the Police. Each offence to carry a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or of 15 years' imprisonment where that maximum sentence is life imprisonment. A single category of illegal drug, with a crackdown on the possession of drugs, including a mandatory sentence of three months for a second offence, six months for a third offence, one year for a fourth offence, and so on. Return to the situation whereby a Bill which ran out of parliamentary time was lost at the end of that session.
That would be a start, anyway.
The last two paragraphs are full of stuff that are not relevent to Scotland pre and post devolution.
ReplyDelete"Committal powers of the magistracy"
Er, never existed in Scotland. JPs are confined to the JP court to deal with the lowest offences. Sheriffs deal with commitals etc.
"prosecution powers of the police"
"Crown Prosecution Service"
Never heard of the Procurator Fiscal or the Lord Advocate son?
"Secrecy of Family Courts" - does not apply here. No such thing.
Secrecy on the other hand exists in committals for indictable offences here. Anyone facing indictment here appears before a sheriff in private during the comittal proceedings.
See ya!
I hope that you feel better for getting that off your chest.
ReplyDeleteThe absence of these things, even historically, in Scotland is a very important insight into, contrary to what is often asserted, quite how oligarchic a place Scotland has always been compared to England, dominated by an irremovable and impenetrable upper middle class which defines itself as Scotland without remainder and is mostly concerned with keeping the common herd in its paddock. Hence, for example, no history of a right to trial by jury. A member of that class can just send anyone else to prison.
In other words, the SNP vote.
"A return to preventative policing based on foot patrols, with budgetary sanctions against recalcitrant Chief Constables who failed to implement this."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Foot patrols seem much rarer in the U.S. too, at least in my own neck of the woods. You used to have “beat cops” “walking the beat” in abundance, but now they all drive around in cars.
I am not sure why the foot patrol has declined. I understand that there are advantages in having some police officers in cars, but the beat cop was an important part of the neighborhood policing system.
"A member of that class can just send anyone else to prison."
ReplyDeleteYeah right. The Lord Advocate is the daughter of coalman and comes from Govan. She will get to the bench.
I am sure all those in the English-Welsh judiciary are from prolitariat backgrounds. Including the JPs.
See ya!
JPs often are from that sort of background, at any rate, in these parts. They come up through the local unions and Labour local government. So that was where they started out.
ReplyDeleteBut as the young people say, it's not where you're from, it's where you're at. And by "a coalman", I expect that you mean either or both of "an NUM official" and "a Labour councillor".
I will be blogging at some future time on that aspect of Scottish culture and society: how it is fixed in favour of the upper middle class, and especially the publicly dependent upper middle class, in a way which simply does not apply in England. The SNP vote, of course. Such as there still is.
Abolishing short sentences has absolutely nothing to do with the idea that many prisoners are innocent. It is happening because short sentences don't work. Ask anyone who has been inside a prison, including short and long term prisoners. And don't imagine that they would work if only they were severe enough. The short sharp shock failed to reduce crime, which is why it was abandoned. Short term prisoners are usually either people who steal to fuel drug habits or as part of gang culture or people who have fights when they are drunk. None of these people weighs up the pros and cons of the sentence before commiting the crime. Further, young criminals in particular - and most adult criminals are just young criminals gettign older - are most afraid not of the sentence but of the likelihood of being caught and disappointing a respected role model.
ReplyDeleteThe ways to reduce crime are:
1. Make sure that young people actually have positive role models, which means getting them out of negative peer groups and families before they offend.
2. Drug treatment in the community, which it must be if the reformed addict is to remain clean for the rest of their lives in the community.
3. More expensive alcohol.
4. More CCTV - yes, really - which is worthless for deterence, but increases the likelihood of catching people.
and 5. Forget retribution. It is inherently impossible, as the offender will never suffer as the victim suffered, not least because the offender would know what was coming.
Coalman - someone who delivers coal to houses.
ReplyDeleteThicko.
See also "trade union official" and "Labour Councillor", especially under "children of".
ReplyDelete