Crime and punishment have been in
the news again this week. It has been a
week of ‘bemoaning.’ First we had Sara
Payne bemoaning the uncertainties surrounding release dates of long term
prisoners, mindful no doubt of the prisoner convicted of abducting, abusing and
murdering her daughter.
Then we had Kier
Starmer, the beleaguered Director of Public Prosecutions, bemoaning the
increasing use by the Police of cautions, even in cases where serious crimes
have been committed.
Speaking for myself, I deplore
the “steps of the court” cameo TV appearances of the relatives of victims, straight
from the worst excesses of American soap operas, herded together by Plod and bemoaning
the acquittal of the accused, or more often, the fact that the perpetrator of
the crime has been sentenced to less than 150 years in prison, without
parole. As soon as I see these
‘moaners’, I hit the mute button. They
know nothing about the law, and besides, it’s so unBritish!
Leaving aside the emotional
baggage which Mrs. Payne brings to the debate, the present system of sentencing
convicted offenders to life imprisonment is as good as it’s likely to get, and
is in the public domain. The judge is
obliged to “set a tariff,” namely the minimum sentence to be served in prison
before parole can be considered.
Note my emphasis, as parole is certainly
not a formality and far from a shoo in. Once the tariff has been served, the prisoner will indeed apply for
parole, but he must satisfy the Parole Board, and ultimately the Secretary of
State for Justice, that he is no longer a danger to the public if released on
licence. That licence is for life, so if
he re-offends, or fails to obey any of the rules laid down by his supervising
officer in the community, his licence will be revoked and he will be returned
to custody, often for several more years before a fresh application for parole
will be entertained.
In this country, and with a few
notable exceptions, we try to balance retribution with rehabilitation. It is the hallmark of a civilised society
that no man is beyond redemption. Mrs.
Payne will be kept informed of any application by her daughter’s killer for
parole, and will be invited to make representations, but ultimately the
decision to refuse parole or release on licence must be made by those who have
the necessary expertise and who are not emotionally involved.
As for Kier Starmer, I suspect
he’s wondering what he let himself in for when he took the job. Breaking the mould of his predecessors, who
were conspicuous by their silence, he has been asked to make decisions and to
hold himself accountable, and on any view, his has been an uncomfortable
experience. Put bluntly, he looks
hopelessly out of his depth.
Firstly
there was the issue of assisted suicide, forced on him by the now defunct House
of Lords, and now the overuse of police cautions. Graphic pictures of victims of violent crime
and scarred for life have been splashed across the pages of tabloids and
broadsheets alike, accompanied by the question: “Why wasn’t my attacker
prosecuted and not simply cautioned?”
It’s worth remembering that
before Plod can issue a caution, the ‘criminal’ must admit guilt. If he denies the offence, he cannot be
cautioned. And as we all know, a
confession of guilt, freely obtained, is the best evidence to place before a
court. There is a suspicion that the
Crown Prosecution Service, for which Starmer has the ultimate responsibility,
is using cautions as an easy option. It
saves paperwork and time, as well as the time of Plod, who can be better
employed operating radar controlled speed traps and chasing yobs through
shopping arcades late at night.
My recent experiences of the CPS
suggest they need a complete rethink of their priorities. At the same time, ways must be found to reduce
the mountain of paperwork in even the simplest of cases, involving form filling
and checking and rechecking and box ticking and file preparation of monumental
proportions, and all too often, for little or nothing in return.
Kier Starmer must now stand up
and be counted, and show some leadership. The courts must accept their share of responsibility and criticise where
criticism is merited. Time for change
and a new approach, and as they say, where there’s a will, there’s a way. Problem is, there’s precious little evidence
of a will, more like groping in the dark.
- Article Word Count: 688
- |
- Total Views: 2
- |
- permalink