Why do we accept a system that almost tolerates crime that kills?
What is needed is a complete re-think on our criminal justice system.
From the top down, judges, the CPS and the prison service all require the government to take a look at the words crime and punishment – and decide just what the true meanings should be.
They also need to examine why we have prisons and what is their purpose, because without doubt now, pro rata, there seems to be as much criminal activity inside the
walls as there is outside.
I have heard calls for the return of capital punishment; indeed, our new home secretary Priti Patel, below ,has hinted she could be in favour of such for the most heinous of crimes.
Any sentence handed down now is no longer a deterrent, but at the very least it should be a fitting punishment for the crime committed.
Ten years for killing two small children, probably out on licence in five, is not acceptable.
Our most notable public executioner Mr Albert Pierrepoint wrote in his book that after a long career he came to the conclusion that the death penalty was not in itself a deterrent, rather it was society’s ‘ultimate revenge’ against the criminal.
How many people would have said that a capital sentence for two men who hacked a soldier to death in broad daylight on the streets of London would have been the most appropriate outcome?
Most of us would have seen and heard reports from the Middle East of appalling acts carried out by ISIS on innocent men, women and children, and probably felt just a little elated when later we found out the perpetrators had been killed.
So why do we accept a system that almost tolerates crime that kills, be it with a gun or knife?
Why treat differently death by car when drunk or sending a text, or do wehavetoseeitaspartof everyday life while trying to justify it with some psychobabble reasoning? We are more than 50 years on from the abolition of the death penalty in Great Britain (eight years later in Northern Ireland). One of the commanding reasons in the debate was a question of absolute guilt or possible innocence. The police now have the benefit of more scientific ways of tackling crime which negates many of the old arguments. At the same time, however, we should look at all crime as a scourge on society at large, not as a daily nuisance. Importantly, those who spend their time on the ground should never feel it’s all a waste of time. If we get to that state, all is truly lost. We live in an age now where crime is all around, on the screen and in the news. In many ways, much of it is glorified and the actual consequences diminished. Criminals, whether fictional or real, are seen by some as folk heroes and somehow to be emulated. Wrong! These dirtbags kill, steal and cheat, and deserve the best we can lavish on them, in the worst possible form. Terrify them, Priti – yes, yes, yes!
Brian Nevill Gosport