Certain incredulity is surely abound amongst the British population tonight as MPs argue back and forth over the level of punishment suitable for the rioters that ruled several important cities across the country last week.
Coming to terms with the extent of last week’s devastating loots, the Prime Minister, David Cameron, last week publically pledged that all those found to have been involved in the illicit actions would be met with the full force of the law: a sentiment that was supported by the vast majority of the nation. Mr Cameron added “If these people are old enough to commit the crime, they are old enough to face the punishment.”
However, as it emerged that some of the participants were as young as eight years old, there begs the question of the age of criminal responsibility. Moreover, this issue is one clearly within the public spotlight and mind frame. Unlike the daily sessions in court, specific interest has caused a commotion and tense atmosphere under which jurors are expected to pass harsher sentences than normal.
Of course, these are no normal conditions. Law should be considered as a measurable tool for each individual and not haphazardly applied in blanket fashion across all those who are not law abiding citizens.
Yet it is somewhat disparaging and deeply concerning when people are faced with this comparison: 18 year old, David Atto, pleaded guilty to the theft of two Burberry T-shirts. With no previous convictions against his name and an honest plea, he was sentenced to a day in custody. Meanwhile, Nicolas Robinson, 23, of Borough, south-east London, was jailed for six months for burglary. Of course, whilst the nature of the offense is similar to that above, Robinson took a £3.50 bottle of water from a Lidl Supermarket. The difference is astounding to say the least.
Some judges cite the difference of the level of crime as meriting the change in sentence strength. The natural response is an onslaught of appeals to what many feel constitute a miscarriage of justice.
However, if the perpetrators were so moved to action in a frenzy trusting that they would only receive trivial punishment, then the system need not cave on the level of severity introduced thus far.
Now that more than 1,000 people have been sentenced in association with the disturbances, the murmurs of discontent on both sides are spreading. As changeable and extreme as the punishments first appear, ex-Lib Dem leader Sir Menzies Campbell has urged MPs not to pass comment. Any attempt by MPs to influence judges' decisions was "not consistent with the rule of law", he told the BBC. In a radio interview, he elaborated by explaining, “What I don't think is right is that politicians should have a league table in which they approve of some sentences and disapprove of others. It's none of our business.”
Unprecedented opinions however are sure to spill over and whilst Sir Campbell’s comments make sense so as not undermine any law system, these, the most powerful men and women in the country, are looked toward first and foremost from a populous so dumbfounded.
Technological twists only further tangle the trials and thought on relevant sentence. With many now being brought to court for Facebook and Twitter comments as inciting violence, there is a difficulty with how to justify any extended action if the person was not directly involved or foolishly made a passing jibe. In almost a sci-fi fashion, we could be advocating courts to follow through on pre-crime solutions.
Level of justice and level of crime. Scales that constantly need be measured to ensure a smoothly running country have here seemed to see-saw back and forth. But as a public we must remember, we are no more qualified to say what is suitable punishment than the MPs. Politicians make law; police and courts enforce and implement law.
No comments:
Post a Comment