Justitia, Old Bridge of Heidelberg

Justitia, Old Bridge of Heidelberg
Justitia, Old Bridge of Heidelberg © Gernot Keller, 2007
Blinkered Justice articles also appear on CrimeTalk and Government In The Lab
Showing posts with label punitivity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label punitivity. Show all posts

Wednesday, 9 May 2012

Bad person


(c) Criminonymous

In this latest piece, Criminonymous posits that any definition of 'crime' is contingent upon time and place. None of us are wholly innocent. Does imprisonment, and its associated sanctions, work?

There are people who break into other people’s homes
People who trespass on private land because they want to roam
A drunken person might steal a phone and a garden gnome
And then there’s couples whose love is a crime and a sin
People whose political views are deemed worthy of prison
People who transgress to achieve an end they were taught was legitimate
What you consider deviant depends on what you see as normal
What you see as bad depends on your experience of sorrow
The norms we adhere to shift like the continents
Our priorities change, but no one keeps on top of it
We all want safety, irrespective of our stance
But the people in the jails are mostly there by chance
We don’t fight crime; we define crime
We respond when we can, but for the majority of offences
There’s no such thing as a plan
That can effectively stem all the illicit demand
We blame cops too for the culture in which they live
Like with any gang culture, recruits may be of a certain creed
But to reintegrate, our forgiveness is what they need
Police are as manipulated as everyone else
All mental health is suspect in and of itself
People are fragile
Liable to influence by their surroundings, like the hopeless in prison
The futile stockpiling of our brothers and sisters
And when they’re out, these erstwhile exiles
No longer fit the profile of a worthwhile punt
They must be imbeciles; their values must be totally different
Can’t reconcile employment with debilitating criminal illness
Forgetting that crimes are committed by almost all of us
What if everyone was charged the first time they tried drugs?
Everyone who shoplifted, downloaded a song, sped or littered?
Caught or not, it’s the overwhelming majority
That’s the sheer insanity of the us-and-them mentality
Our primal hostility masked as higher morality
Assumptions of purity are no more than an illusion
We prescribe division like our laws were the words of a god
And to break them is to trash our religion
But if you put everyone corrupt in jail, who will be left to lock us all in?
It’s a war of attrition that we’re never going to win

(c) Criminonymous

Thursday, 20 October 2011

Drugs possession: A shot in the arm for punishment

(c) Cycle~
Last week, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) advised the UK government against criminalising drugs users. Instead, they suggested that offenders attend treatment and education programmes, and face alternative sanctions, such as the confiscation of driving licenses. Rather than imprisoning someone, which in turn may lead to less repeat offending, the government could save an estimated £45,000 a year.

Despite the potential benefits, The Guardian reported that the Home Office had quickly rejected ACMD’s proposal. A Home Office spokesman is quoted as saying:
"We have no intention of liberalising our drugs laws. Drugs are illegal because they are harmful – they destroy lives and cause untold misery to families and communities.
"Those caught in the cycle of dependency must be supported to live drug-free lives, but giving people a green light to possess drugs through decriminalisation is clearly not the answer.
"We are taking action through tough enforcement, both inland and abroad, alongside introducing temporary banning powers and robust treatment programmes that lead people into drug-free recovery."
I am shocked by this statement. Companies push their legal drugs onto the market every bit as hard as criminals market their illegal products. They can lead to the same harms. Alcohol is freely available over the counter and every bit as harmful, if not more harmful, than other drugs. Cigarettes, and the large profits that the UK carte….sorry, government, earns from it, has led to burgeoning competition from illegal tobacco traders.

(c) Trexer
More pertinently, addiction needs to be discussed. Recovering addicts attend the likes of Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous to rid themselves of their addictions. More and more people are becoming addicted to gambling, with the majority coming from more disadvantaged backgrounds, and yet the UK government actively promotes gambling. Why?


Besides, the government does not appear to be basing their objections on any evidence that might suggest that current policy is working. In 2001, Portugal adopted a similar approach to their drug problems as that advocated by ACMD. The Cato Institute (2009) studied the effects of this policy and produced a white paper for creating fair and successful drug policies. Whilst Time critiqued the likelihood of it working in the USA, it does not contest its findings.

So why is the UK government failing to respond to their own experts’ advice and evidence? 


If the Conservative party are trying to placate those MPs and party members who are politically right of centre through a robust approach to law and order, then they need to take into account what it is the British public wants. Not what they think it wants.

In their recent study, “Custody or community? Exploring the boundaries of public punitiveness in England and Wales”, Roberts and Hough (2011) found that the public were far less concerned with imposing custodial sentences when mitigating factors were relayed to them. They found that a significant number of people would accept community penalties as retribution, even for fairly serious offences. The Transform Drugs Policy Foundation also has links to a number of opinion polls and studies that have been conducted in this field. Much of the evidence reveals that the public do not support punitive measures.  

At a time when austerity measures are beginning to exert additional financial pressures on the public, and at a time when individuals, families and communities are expected to economise, the UK government’s decision to reject this proposal out of hand is duplicitous. 


The government are happy to make cuts to public services, yet on this occasion, despite the financial savings, they will not reconsider this policy for their own political whims. Not only are the government harming those whom they imprison, and their families, but equally, the government is harming you and me. 
Enhanced by Zemanta