Ostrich Politics
This morning the government, in response to concerns about knife crime, has unveiled its latest strategy.
Denial.
It’s an appealing piece of logic for this government. Point to some flawed statistics, insist that everything is rosy, and accuse your opponents of making political capital out of private grief. The public will swallow the statistics, the media will find another story, and the Old Etonians won’t dare to challenge this new orthodoxy for fear of being seen as condescending opportunists.
So it was that this morning the Times ran with the cover story that the government is to insist that knife crime is falling. They point to British Crime Survey statistics, and plan to spend almost half a million pounds hammering the point home.
These statistics however are deeply flawed; the British Crime Survey does not interview under-16s. Given that knife crime is primarily a youth phenomenon that does not observe the arbitrary cut-off age of 16, this means that a swathe of knife crimes are not recorded. Factor in the code of silence surrounding gang crime, the BCS’s under-representation of ethnic minorities, and its biases against reporting low-level crime, and serious problems emerge.
The use of such dodgy statistics to claim that crime is falling suggests that the government has, despite all the headline-grabbing initiatives, no idea how to confront the problems presented by crime, and is now hoping that if it ignores the problem, it will go away.
After all the initiatives and gimmicks, Brown’s government have effectively admitted that they don’t have an answer.
Sphere: Related ContentNo to Kneejerk Justice
Not long after Jacqui Smith declared that the 42-Days detention measure was brought in as part of a new culture of preventing knee-jerk legislation, Jack Straw… puts through knee-jerk legislation. After a ruling by the Law Lords last week that the present witness anonymity rules jeopardise fair trials, Mr. Straw has decided that the best response is to rush through a Bill that risks being poorly thought-through, failing to adequately address the issues at stake, and filled with unintended consequences.
The reasons for doing so are perfectly understandable: the ruling risks undermining numerous trials that rely on the testimony of anonymous witnesses. The police consider it vital for convicting gang members, drug dealers and murderers. Their case is admirable, but so is that of the Law Lords. It is fundamental to a fair trial to be able to face one’s accuser; to be unable to do so moves the burden of proof away from the prosecution. The defence, unable to cross-examine the credibility of a witness, have to disprove their testimony. In so doing the presumption of innocence is removed. Moreover, the psychological effect of witnesses giving testimony anonymously prejudices the outcome of the trial by implying that the accused is violent.
In these cases the ability to get witnesses to come forward needs to be balanced against the right to face one’s accusers. The Law Lords felt that this was not occurring. The Government’s response should be to take this move constructively and create a law that deals with this serious problem. The concern that the system could allow for a miscarriage of justice is genuine: emergency legislation will not alleviate it. The best solution would be to have a free vote on the matter to ensure proper scrutiny and discussion of what is a particularly difficult legal conundrum. Parliament lends itself towards this solution: the Commons is filled with lawyers, and their expertise, scrutinised through various readings and checked against the expert opinion of those in the Lords, could produce a sensible law. The debate should be constructive and beyond party-political lines. The legislature moves slowly because justice must be deliberate.
More haste less speed.
Sphere: Related ContentViolent Crime, Anti-Social Behaviour and the Community
The fatal stabbing of Robert Knox last week was the latest in a series of murders that have shocked the public. The President of the High Court’s Queen’s Bench Division has described knife crime as being ‘at epidemic proportions’. Low-level crime has in many cases been grouped together under the umbrella category of “anti-social behaviour”, and a growth in gang and weapon culture in Britain has been observed. There is a feeling in the media and the public that such crime is an ever more pressing challenge that requires a bold solution.
One can accept in part the statistics that are quoted with regards to crime rates. Claims that Britain is facing a rise in violent crime but that overall crime rates are falling are not mutually exclusive. Upon examination of the British Crime Survey and Home Office statistics the greatest declines have been vehicle thefts and domestic burglary. Such crimes are usually ones of opportunity. Improvements in crime prevention technology have been partially responsible for these reductions. However, to use such statistics regarding an overall fall in crime are to overlook significant increases in violent and drug-related crimes, far more pertinent to the discussion at hand. The British Crime Survey also suffers from the problem of not surveying under-16s until recently. That many victims and perpetrators today fall into this category distorts the figures, making accurate use of previous results difficult. To say crime rates are falling in response to questions over violent crime is to miss the point.
Even if one is to assume that violent crime rates have remained stable, the fundamental issue remains unaddressed. The rate of such crimes, regardless of stability, remains unacceptable. The underlying attitudes that cause them pose a serious challenge for law-enforcement and society in general. Although it would be unrealistic to suggest , for example, that possession and use of weapons can be eliminated, the underlying attitude that considers it is socially acceptable and a legitimate form of self-defence can be limited. Violent and gang-related crime are a growing problem and solutions covering the various causes and effects have to be examined for the short, medium and long term.
The short-term solution is the more rigorous enforcement of existing laws. Legislation already exists to tackle the worst problems. Effective enforcement, along with a greater police presence in the worst-affected areas, with the employment of a more robust approach can reduce the relative ease and impunity with which such criminals can operate. Such restriction can also provide short-term relief, as well as the space necessary for medium to long-term solutions to be effective. This approach, though high-profile and likely to deliver short-term results, cannot however be an effective long-term strategy. It is too expensive and too repressive to be a panacaea. A long-term high police presence would cost the taxpayer more money, divert police resources from other vital tasks, and risk projecting a negative image of the force that may hamper its ability to build and maintain effective long-term community relations. Although it could be argued that the pendulum of policing has swung too far in the direction of political correctness and sensitivity, a return to the days of “sus” and indiscriminate overzealous stop-and-search would be just as bad. Furthermore, strong enforcement and high-visibility policing does not address the underlying causes. They have to be used in conjunction with medium and long-term approaches.
In the medium term stronger sentencing is vital. Geoff Hoon explained the reasoning effectively on Question Time with regards to knife crime: by carrying a knife in public, the likelihood of someone being injured or killed increases. One is therefore responsible for the potentially fatal consequences of such a decision. Tough sentencing is thus required to punish the perpetrator for putting other members of the public at risk. Strong sentencing has the political effect of demonstrating a resolve to take such crime seriously, bolstering enforcement and prevention efforts on other fronts. It also acts as an effective deterrent against carrying a weapon. The cost of possessing a knife can be made to outweigh the dubious benefits of defensive capability it is supposed to confer. People are then less likely to want to possess a knife for self-defence, and will opt to be unarmed instead. Potential murders are reduced to brawls. As the previous sentence highlights, this is a medium-term solution. It can reduce instances of possession of knife weapons, and put a dent in the attitudes that legitimise such possession, but it requires additional support to provide a full response. Without addressing the causes, such a solution risks simply reducing the violence of crime, rather than the level of crime.
The long-term response has to be the rebuilding and strengthening of communities. Many of the problems surrounding armed and gang crime come from issues of attitudes and social deprivation. People seek to overcome low self-esteem by arming themselves and gaining a sense of empowerment. A lack of identity leads to people seeking affirmation in gangs, and the lack of ability to productively channel one’s energies leads to mindless violence bordering on the feral. Youth clubs have shut down, community property has been handed over to developers, and institutions of civil society have weakened. The desire for such communities however remains strong. The proliferation of social networking sites and online communities demonstrates the need for social interaction based around common interests and identities. Almost simultaneously however the institutions of territorial community have withered in place of an increasingly atomised society that overemphasises individualism. A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation demonstrated the extent of popular sentiment on this issue, arguing that the decline in community and rise of individualism were considered the new social evils. The loss of community spirit and institutions has weakened the fabric of society that is vital in preventing and restricting crime and anti-social behaviour.
By rebuilding and strengthening the local community one can provide alternate sources of activity for those who might otherwise join gangs. By keeping people occupied, the basic ability to cause trouble is limited. The provision of opportunities to develop skills and socialise in non-hostile environments also serves to build character and self-esteem, reducing the need for the weapon as a status symbol, as well as the desire to find affirmation in a gang. Through the provision of social activity, people become tied to their communities and their neighbours. Anti-social behaviour will be reduced if people feel they are part of that society. By rebuilding local communities, the territorial instinct and desire for identity that many young men have can be fulfilled in a productive manner, and channelled towards integration into wider society. A strong community also builds the cultural will necessary for the enforcement of the law. It allows the police to become integrated and have the popular support they need to operate effectively, and develops the social attitudes that empower people to stand against gangs and criminality, knowing that they are not merely crusading individuals, but speak with the backing of the community they belong to.
The underlying cause of rising violent crime and anti-social behaviour is not through a fundamental lack of discipline, education or law, but from the decline in the traditional institutions and spirit of community in modern Britain. Effective policing and strong sentencing can only address the symptoms of crime; the causes must be addressed by the strengthening of the local institutions of community and society.
Sphere: Related Content
