>
>That is a hyperbole - I have not seen the police arbitrarily
>arresting people in this country, so in reality you have nothing to
>fear - you just make a dramatic statement.
A legal system such as that in California, where some people can be imprisoned without trial, because they are regarded as guilty until proven innocent, requires dramatisation. I have nothing to fear because I will never go there, but I am still outraged.
>Arresting delinquents is a different thing, and legal formalities
>are not alwyas followed.
And they are presumed "delinquent" because they have been accused of being delinquent I presume.
> But that is at best a minor issue.
Compared to summary execution?
> Police going after delinquents is a good thing, because delinqunts
>victimize predominatly low income people and minorities rather than
>upper echelons of society or, for that matter, campus residents - as
>crime stats clearly show. Most common folks like strong law
>enforcement, because it directlly benefits them by preventing
>hoodlums from vicitmizing them.
Yes, and getting the trains to run on time directly benefits the people too. The means justify the ends?
> The supposedly "progressive" preoccupation with criminal justice
>(calls for leniency, protection of criminal's "civil liberties" etc.)
Don't you mean the alleged "criminal's" civil liberties? Oh sorry, its guilty until proved innocent - I keep forgetting.
> - is quite misguided. It assures that progressives are seen as out
>of touch dogmatics who care more about principles than people's
>safety. Not to mention the fact that putting an individual's
>freedom before collective rights and safety surely sounds
>strange among the self-professed champions of social justice.
There are some advantages in terms of public safety to protecting civil liberties. For one thing, if members of the public are liable to be unjustly imprisoned they are not really "safe" in any meaningful sense of the word. For another, if the legal system is so badly administered that innocent people are being locked up, then it is also safe to assume that guilty people are going free.
Abandoning the "preoccupation" with civil liberties is thus doubly unsafe. I have no idea why you believe it makes people safer, you neglected to sustain the conclusion with any reasoned argument.
>
>Perhpas the left would no be so marginalized in this country if it
>adopeted a more pro-working class, tough on crime stance.
Perhaps it would. But in what sense would it be still the left, if it adopted the position of the right?
> Nathan's post is a step in the right direction.
Not as big a step in the RIGHT direction as your post.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas
PS, here's some reading matter for you. Nicholas Cowdery, QC must be one of those misguided leftists you mention. He reckons you're just ignorant and I think he may be right.
http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2002/10/02/1033538673003.htm
Tabloids and talkback have mugged sensible crime debate
Melbourne Age Date: October 3 2002
As Victoria awaits an election campaign, prepare for a frenzy of "tough on crime" rants, writes Nicholas Cowdery.
Law and order is an easy thing for politicians to push. It makes them sound tough (and sounding tough is attractive to those voters who live in fear of crime and in ignorance of the causes and proper control of crime); it makes them sound powerful - as if they actually have the power to do something about crime; it is easy - it requires no detailed research, analysis, planning or even thought; it is instantaneous; and it is comparatively cheap.
None of that makes it right; or even responsible politics. There are very few lasting benefits of such an approach - and a lot of costs not necessarily confined to dollars. However, you will search in vain for a politician who advocates a measured, principled approach to the treatment of offenders that is consistent with best practice in criminology and that might not produce measurable results before the next election. Still the shrill call is for more and longer sentences and tougher judges.
What have we done about preventing crime? We are giving too much attention and spending too much money on the wrong end of the problem.
We must accept the fact that since humankind first socialised there has been crime. The very best that we can do is try to prevent it, control it and clean up after the event with the criminal justice system. Why then do we persist in turning most of our attention and resources to the wrong end of the problem, the back end, the place where it is all too late and the time by which the suffering and loss have occurred?
The nature of the debate that takes place mainly at election times sheds some light on this question. It is not all the fault of the politicians. There is a symbiotic relationship between the politicians and the media that exaggerates the problem - and the public laps it up.
Oscar Wilde once observed that "by giving us the opinions of the uneducated, modern journalism keeps us in touch with the ignorance of the community". Not only are we now kept in touch with its ignorance, we are almost overwhelmed by it and by the distortions that ignorance wreaks on rational discussion. I am not critical of the community. I am critical of those who should be informing and educating people, but who use them to their own ends and keep them in ignorance.
The media do influence politicians. Politicians listen to talkback (or at least, their minders do) and will not start the working day before knowing what it and the tabloids are saying and how those issues can be addressed during the day.
Often they have exchanges with journalists, and enter the information (or misinformation) loop between broadcaster or publisher and participant, and they may both feed into and take from that loop. When they do so, they are not entering informed public debate; they are entering usually a highly charged emotional outpouring.
Talkback radio, the tabloid press, and low-IQ "current affairs" television undoubtedly have influence in the operations and reform of the criminal justice system and the criminal law. They stress persistent themes: that there are not sufficient police; that there is a continuous crime wave that makes living unsafe; that penalties prescribed for offences are not severe enough; that judges are not representing community wishes and the penalties they impose are inadequate; that prosecutors are weak.
Media stories often create an inaccurate - sometimes completely false - perception in the minds of the public about crime. They construct a completely unsuitable base from which to develop policies for law reform. They prompt unwise, knee-jerk reaction. These are the real dangers.
Fortunately, however, the outpourings of the media have less impact on day-to-day decision making within the justice system itself because of the independence of prosecutors and the judiciary.
What can be done up front? Two initiatives are among those that have been tried or suggested in NSW in recent times and seem to make eminently good sense. The first involves, in essence, police patrolling more, using lawful powers to stop, talk to and simply interrupt suspicious persons and known criminals in the neighbourhood. There can be no doubt that increased police presence and visibility are effective crime deterrents. Care must be taken, however, not to allow police to exceed their lawful powers.
Second, increase staff on trains, buses, platforms and bus stations. This might have many benefits: create jobs, improve community safety levels and perceptions and reduce crime.
Nicholas Cowdery, QC, is NSW Director of Public Prosecutions. This is an edited extract of his speech to a forum on law and order in Melbourne yesterday. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021005/be0c9b45/attachment.htm>