Crime and Punishment

So the UK has another of those moral panics it does so well. This time it's all about feral hoodies with absent fathers and unbridled lawlessness that's been sweeping the nation. Yep, that's right I'm talking about the rioting and the looting again. For my earlier thoughts see London's burning.

On Monday 22 August, the Metropolitan Police said they thought that 30 000 people had been involved in the recent troubles. 3296 offences have been reported, including 162 arson offences, 48 cases of serious wounding and 80 cases of assault with injury. So far there have been 1875 arrests and 1070 people have been charged.

Now I'm not for a moment suggesting these people shouldn't get punished for their wrongdoing. But is the response of the judiciary proportionate? David Cameron approves, last week he said; "they have decided to send a tough message and it's very good that the courts feel able to do that." So many people are getting remanded in custody, and so many people are being jailed for what seem fairly trivial offences. And whose benefit are we doing this for? To teach people a lesson? Or are we just doing this to make the British public feel better? It costs 40 thousand pounds a year to keep a male prisoner inside. On top of which the prisons have never been so full and they're well nigh fit to burst.

Another thing which I'm having trouble getting my head around is the notion that people who are convicted should lose their benefits and even lose their right to public housing! This is just bonkers. Nothing has been decided for sure yet but the idea seems immensely popular, especially with the general public to the extent that an on-line petition in favour, is gathering pace and has reached the numbers required to enable MPs to table it for debate it in the House. MPs reconvene sometime in early October. That's another thing I don't understand, I thought we did away with the idea of mob rule years ago? This idea that anyone with a bee in their bonnet can start an e-petition and persuade the government to debate it doesn't strike me as an extension of democracy, it smacks of a charter for all manner of odd-balls, extremists and assorted loonies to get their voices more widely heard.

I think most of us would agree that those who took part in the rioting and looting were people who live out their lives at the edges of society. Many unemployed, young, poor people took part in these disturbances. The Education Maintenance Allowance has gone, the Future Jobs Fund which had helped fund 100 000 jobs for young people since its introduction in 2009 went in March this year. Pretty much every social commentator you listen to or read will tell you that life for the majority of young people is grim right now and not about to get better anytime soon. If you want to a hear things from a young persons perspective please read YH World.

To think about taking away benefits and even housing from people who live on the periphery of society strikes me as utter madness. Then what happens? The people who are affected by these proposals, their quality of life will suffer, they will be further marginalised, they will undoubtably go on to commit further crime, their sense of social exclusion will intensify, it's a recipe for disaster.

Michael White of the Guardian (perhaps I'm showing my colours there) wrote in a blog of his last week: "It's the latest manifestation of an old problem. We all want to punish the seriously bad guys, but sometimes it's easier to make an example of the idiots."