Justice system is not biased against victims, says Blair adviser
Tony Blair's plans to redress what he sees as the propensity for the justice system to favour the accused as opposed to the victim has come under attack from one of his own advisers.
Leading criminologist Ian Loader said ministers were uncritically following public anger on crime rather than acting as a "voice of reason and restraint".
He challenged the central assumption in Mr Blair's strategy, which will be set out in a major speech today, that the system needed to be "rebalanced" in favour of the victim even if that meant eroding the rights of the offender.
He told Mr Blair: "Yet you are now asking us to believe that during this period the criminal justice system has become 'unbalanced', such that it today unduly privileges the rights of suspects over those of the victim in ways that have led society to be poorly defended against crime.Mr Loader makes very good points. Blair has constructed a case on very little evidence and, as I have always argued, with the readers of the Daily Mail as it's proposed recipients.
I think you need to offer more serious evidence than any I have seen that this is in fact the case, rather than simply assert that it is so, or that 'the public' believes it to be so."
The professor, who attended a recent No 10 seminar on crime, warned Mr Blair: "One isn't going to tackle the problem you have identified with a prime ministerial statement on, and yet more legislation about, the criminal justice system."
His paper, which was posted on the Downing Street website, added: "This has become, under your Government, an area of legislative hyperactivity (with in excess of 40 Acts of Parliament passed in this field since 1997), and endless proclamations of intent."
Admitting that he felt "somewhat baffled" by the Government's actions, he suggested that they had more to do with electoral competition than a serious effort to address problems of crime and disorder.
The professor said: "It may even be - as the Home Office has found to its cost in recent weeks - that the dizzying pace of new initiatives has made it more difficult to keep one's eye on the ball of sound administration and delivering programmes that stand some chance of achieving positive results on the ground."
Instead, Professor Loader recommended that the Government try to "reduce the political and media heat" on crime by finding, funding, delivering and explaining to people programmes that work - such as on prison education, reassurance policing and better detection.
He also questioned criticism by ministers of the Human Rights Act, which they are reviewing. He said the Government "seems to have convinced itself that rights exist for a minority, and that too often they protect 'others' who are undeserving, or else threatening of 'our' security".
Mr Blair's main argument against the Human Rights Act, for example, is that it prevents him deporting people to country's where they may face torture.
One would have to question why anyone would want to do such a thing.
Blair's other line of argument seems to be public perception, a button he has hit many times. It does not seem to me a sound way to conduct policy. Public perception of crime is sometimes at variance with reality.
For instance, fear of crime has been shown to be rising at a time when the crime figures have actually been falling.
Likewise a victim feeling that the system favours the accused does not mean that this is necessarily so. After all many victims would remove the presumption of innocence from trials, especially if they know the person who is accused did it, by the very fact that they were the victim when the person did it.
No doubt to them the presumption of innocence is tiresome and gets in the way of having their injustice redressed.
Whilst these feelings are understandable, they are hardly a sensible way to conduct fair trials.
A fair trial assumes the innocence of the accused until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. If Blair thinks that is "favouring the accused" then I say we will just have to go on "favouring the accused".
The system is built around what all of us would like to happen if we were standing in that dock accused of a crime we did not commit.
I think that's a sensible humane system, and I think Blair should leave it well alone.
Click title for full article.
Related Articles:
Blair accuses legal establishment and insists on summary justice drive
2 comments:
I am appalled by the British justice system time and again. I cannot recount how many cases I've read where the perpetrators of incredibly heinous murders in Britain receive a "life sentence" that could enable them to be out in only around 15-20 years. This is apparently the harshest penalty the British justice can mete out to offenders, no matter how disgusting their crimes.
It is disturbing how incredibly weak the justice system is in Britain.
I don't necessarily know the full details about the changes Blair's administration is proposing but if they are along the lines of deporting violent criminals from the country and increasing the severity of sentences in Britain, these are commendable. I'm know little about the details of British trial procedure so I cannot comment upon any changes Blair may be proposing in that area.
The rights of British citizens should certainly come ahead of those of deportable violent criminals. The idea that you cannot deport a criminal to a country where they might face torture is absurd. It isn't the British government's responsibility to babysit thugs. Committing a violent crime in Britain should be a one-way ticket home regardless of where home might ultimately be.
Reading about these criminals back on the street committing more rapes, molestations, and murders after they should have been and could have been deported the first time is sickening.
Unfortunately, people like you propose no real alternatives other than to tolerate these monsters. You seem to have nothing but empty condolences for the victims of the crimes. You don't seem to want to make sentencing harsher and you don't want to deport the offenders, instead you would rather they walk freely in the streets.
By the way, crime in England isn't just a perception. Even New York is a much safer city than London.
Some supporting evidence for my assertion:
Compare the results of a "hard" crime policy in New York versus the "soft" policy of London. There is, at least, seven times more crime overall in London than New York:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9641
Waow! Just when there appeared to be a hint of civility coming into our discourse I appear to have hit your O'Reilly button.
Firstly, you seem to have no understanding of the British legal system.
A life sentence means thirty years, although people do become eligible for parole after a certain period although there is no guarantee that they will get it. We do this in order that good behaviour will be rewarded in order to minimise the risks of riots.
In cases like Myra Hindley she was kept in jail even after she had served her entire sentence, indeed she was kept in jail until the day she died, so you are way out of whack when you describe the system in the way that you do.
The legislation which forbids the transferring of prisoners to country's where they may be tortured was introduced by Tony Blair himself, which is why many of us now question why Tony is up in arms about this. And people not deported are not allowed to "roam the streets" as you put it, they are detained in British jails.
What Tony is mad about is people that he wants to deport who he has no evidence against, certainly none that he is prepared to put before a court. And even they cannot "roam the streets" as you put it as Tony is now allowed to put them under house arrest without even putting them on trial.
And you support Tony without even knowing what he's proposing? Yeah, cos that's a sensible place to start from.
And I didn't say crime was a perception. Do you have to misquote people in order to argue with them?
I spoke of Blair's reasoning when he states that new laws are needed because of "public perception of crime." That's quite a dishonest sleight of hand you just employed.
Nor are you being honest when you employ the "people like you" argument. As the article clearly states, this is the view of Blair's own advisor, leading criminologist Ian Loader, who stated, "I think you need to offer more serious evidence than any I have seen that this is in fact the case, rather than simply assert that it is so, or that 'the public' believes it to be so."
"One isn't going to tackle the problem you have identified with a prime ministerial statement on, and yet more legislation about, the criminal justice system."
Considering that Blair himself appointed the guy, I think we have to give a little credence to what the guy says and not dismiss it with anything as jingoistic as the "people like you" argument.
What he's saying is that Blair's plans (the ones that you support without knowing what they are) won't work.
If you think you're proving yourself as tougher on criminals by supporting blindly things that criminologists say won't work, then knock yourself out with it.
This post of yours was the worst example of knee jerk conservative reaction that I have so far seen.
Oh, and while you're blindly supporting whatever Tony wants to do next, one could also be forgiven for asking why it's taken him nine years to notice this gaping problem?
You don't know Blair. He announces sweeping reform every time he's in trouble. And, in case you haven't noticed, many in his party want him to step down.
Making policy to distract opponents is not a way to make sensible policy.
Post a Comment