We must stop creating new crimes to police and conditions to cure

From thought control to the Wellness Service, the state is taking on more than it can afford

enshrined in law. This is not simply an absurd and quite impossible demand to be made of them: it is sinister.

There is a good reason why free societies, however deeply held their beliefs about compassion and decency are, have not been inclined to turn breaches of those standards into criminal offences. First, because the judgment of a person’s emotions and psychological inclinations is so subtle and subjective that even the supposed perpetrator may not understand why he did what he did. (Did he attack a woman because he was a misogynist or because he was enraged by life generally?)

But, more importantly, it is not the proper business of the state, as represented by the police, to prosecute incorrect attitudes or opinions. That is the definition of Orwell’s “thoughtcrime”. Motive may be a useful evidential matter in determining whether a suspect is guilty (was he likely to benefit from the crime?) but to elevate the expression of certain kinds of motive like prejudice (“hatred”) to criminal status goes way beyond this. It obliterates the important difference between what is immoral and what is illegal.

Most people, for example, believe that adultery is immoral because it is hurtful and selfish, but few of those living outside of fundamentalist religious states would demand that it be made illegal. Whereas parking on a double yellow line is broadly accepted as being illegal, but not many of us would call it immoral. This is a hugely important distinction that has been maintained rigorously in most democratic countries because it preserves the responsibility of individuals to maintain ethical rules and limits for themselves, and leaves the censure of unacceptable points of view to the community, rather than the government. When the state begins to impose – under threat of criminal prosecution – rules for correct feelings and attitudes, as opposed to specific acts, or it declares unacceptable opinions to be aggravating factors in criminal acts, we are headed down that proverbial road paved with good intentions.

There are, as many conscientious chief constables have been pointing out, already standing offences – incitement to violence, physical assault, domestic abuse – which police, courts and most of the citizenry can agree should be prosecuted and which do not involve the police in the impossible and politically dangerous judgment of states of mind. It is true that there are ambiguities and hard cases: publicly voiced vicious opinions and verbal abuse can cause real fear and do actual damage to a victim’s quality of life. When they are extreme, they can be classified as threatening behaviour – and thus criminal. This can be a difficult call, but it is worth making. It is the sharp end of that difference Ms Pinkney pointed out between “horrible things” that happen and offences in which the police should legitimately be involved. What matters is that the distinction itself should not be lost.

But these finer points have been marginal during the past week’s debate, perhaps because they seem more suited to a philosophy seminar than a discussion about police resources, which is the most urgent concern of the general public. It struck me, in the midst of the clamour about house break-ins and gang violence being left unattended, and the relationship between this

at telegraph.co.uk/ opinion phenomenon and shortfalls in police funding, that there was an odd parallel with another public service that is crying out for greater resources to meet increased demand. The NHS is now in pretty much perpetual crisis, with GPs maintaining that their workload is at intolerable levels, while their patients find primary care so difficult to access that they are forced to misuse Accident and Emergency departments as a substitute.

In recent years, the NHS – not unlike the police – has been entrusted with whole new categories of responsibility. GPs are at the forefront of what is now regarded as a national Wellness Service, dedicated to the monitoring of healthy people whose risk factors – cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar levels – must be regularly recorded, with any deviation from the government-set standards immediately medicated and then further monitored for side-effects, and so on and on. A considerable proportion of GP surgery appointments are now taken up by such regular supervisory arrangements – for which doctors are specifically remunerated. This tendency to over-medicate particularly older patients is regarded by many (including my Telegraph colleague, Dr James LeFanu) as largely unnecessary. But leaving aside the medical debate, it is certainly a sign of an ever-increasing over-reach in public authority.

Giving in to pressure from vociferous lobbies, the Government has invented new crimes for the police to control, and it has invented new conditions for doctors to treat. Then it wonders why, in an era of relatively low crime and improved health, it is faced with insatiable demands for further resources for policing and healthcare.

It is not the proper business of government to prosecute incorrect attitudes or opinions. That is the definition of ‘thoughtcrime’