>The stated aim of the measures is to fight crime by increasing the rate of
>convictions. If this were true it would be irrational in any case since
>criminal justice cannot be used to prevent crime only to punish it.
A fallacy. The theory is that the likelihood of punishment deters and thus prevents some (perhaps much) crime. You know this, so, if you want to attack the theory, you need to argue that deterrence doesn't work. It's almost certain that it does work to some extent.
But it cannot be the true aim since the conviction rate
>in the criminal courts overall is already 97 per cent.
Well, that doesn't follow either. I happen to agree with you that "get tough on crime" measures are usually aimed at boosting politician's poll rating rather than at lowering crime rates. Probably here too. But it doesn't follow from the high conviction rate that this is so, or that someone might not think that if it were higher that that would not have more deterrent effect.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com