Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Lord Phillips, soft on crime soft on the causes of crime
The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers seems engaged in a campaign against tough sentences. Far be it from me to suggest that he's after a promotion or honour, but I'm sure his "help" to his (and our) political masters at this time of prison overcrowding, will not go un-rewarded.
The first article, appearing in The Times on Monday and linked here, has our "hero" masquerading as: "a solicitor sentenced to 150 hours’ unpaid work for drink-driving". A cover which in my view would make any "lag" suspicious as the sentence is far too light even for a solicitor, had he said for "granny bashing" then it might have been plausible. Although as it transpires he is perhaps too soft for that, he should have said he'd conned someone.
I'm going to quote a big chunk from the article, because it shows just how soft and out of touch Lord Phillips actually is: "Lord Phillips’s day entailed cleaning up vandalism on The Lakes council estate in Bletchley, Buckinghamshire. “I was sweating away doing the weeding. After a tea break we brushed and washed down the inside of the underpass, attacking the black ceiling with buckets of water and squeegees. It was pretty foul work,” he told The Observer. “The passageway was fairly revolting. Someone had set fire to a wastepaper basket, so the ceiling was coated in soot and the dirt ran down my arms.”"
"“I was sweating away doing the weeding... " Oh yes like me and countless other law abiding people throughout the land on gardens and allotments. Really tough punishment this "payback project".
"After a tea break..." What! a tea break? Oh no not soft there at all.
"... we brushed and washed down the inside of the underpass, attacking the black ceiling with buckets of water and squeegees. It was pretty foul work,”" As opposed to working in hospital and cleaning up human medical wastes? I don't think you can even comprehend the meaning of "foul" or "work".
"“The passageway was fairly revolting... " I don't really think so, I'm sure with very little effort I could find things far worse.
"... the ceiling was coated in soot and the dirt ran down my arms.”" Poor little soft mummy's boy, the horrible soot ran all down your arms, how do you think law abiding chimney sweeps manage?
Finally: " Lord Phillips said: “I like to think that I am liberal, but that is not the same as being soft on crime... "
Lord Phillips, you're soft, not only on crime, but clearly everything else. There's nothing here that won't be done by law abiding ordinary people going about their lives doing their normal work or various DIY tasks. If you think that this is being "tough" you have no conception of the lives most people lead. The best thing for you would be to go and live on a "sink" estate for a month, a soft boy like you will soon be the biggest target for every low-life for miles around, I'd like to see what you think of the so called “payback project” then?
Anyway, one bout in the media is clearly insufficient for him so today he returns, criticising prison sentences (no not for being too short). "He said that a five-year jail term was a very weighty punishment but “some elements of the media are inclined ... to speak of defendants being permitted to ‘walk free’ after only five years inside”." Well if you're sentenced to a five year term, normally you'll be walking free after serving about two, also what he fails to address is that many criminals deserve the full five year term, that's why they get that sentence. Many crimes carrying this sentence are weighty crimes where severe violence has been inflicted on a victim, or where multiple crimes have been carried out.
If they deserve five years, then that is what they should get, no matter how weighty it is. It seems the only criteria recognised by Lord Phillips is to "protect the public", but I think this is just lip service, because the longer you keep a criminal locked up, the more the public is protected, don't ever let them out and they'll never re-offend.
He certainly doesn't like the idea of punishment for the crime: "an incitement to the public to exact vengeance from offenders not dissimilar from the emotions of those who thronged to public executions in the 18th century.”" Well Lord Phillips what was the crime rate in the 18th century? Especially if you exclude the things which aren't crimes now? Was the murder and robbery rate per capita higher or lower than today? What about re-offending for these crimes? Oh they were capital offences, so there was no re-offending.
"“I sometimes wonder whether, in a hundred years’ time, people will be as shocked by the length of the sentences we are imposing as we are by some punishments of the 18th century.”" Yes they probably will, they'll be shocked at how we've allowed stupid liberal ideology to dictate sentencing and punishment policy instead of looking at deterrence and retribution.
Lord Phillips, soft on crime soft on the causes of crime.
The first article, appearing in The Times on Monday and linked here, has our "hero" masquerading as: "a solicitor sentenced to 150 hours’ unpaid work for drink-driving". A cover which in my view would make any "lag" suspicious as the sentence is far too light even for a solicitor, had he said for "granny bashing" then it might have been plausible. Although as it transpires he is perhaps too soft for that, he should have said he'd conned someone.
I'm going to quote a big chunk from the article, because it shows just how soft and out of touch Lord Phillips actually is: "Lord Phillips’s day entailed cleaning up vandalism on The Lakes council estate in Bletchley, Buckinghamshire. “I was sweating away doing the weeding. After a tea break we brushed and washed down the inside of the underpass, attacking the black ceiling with buckets of water and squeegees. It was pretty foul work,” he told The Observer. “The passageway was fairly revolting. Someone had set fire to a wastepaper basket, so the ceiling was coated in soot and the dirt ran down my arms.”"
"“I was sweating away doing the weeding... " Oh yes like me and countless other law abiding people throughout the land on gardens and allotments. Really tough punishment this "payback project".
"After a tea break..." What! a tea break? Oh no not soft there at all.
"... we brushed and washed down the inside of the underpass, attacking the black ceiling with buckets of water and squeegees. It was pretty foul work,”" As opposed to working in hospital and cleaning up human medical wastes? I don't think you can even comprehend the meaning of "foul" or "work".
"“The passageway was fairly revolting... " I don't really think so, I'm sure with very little effort I could find things far worse.
"... the ceiling was coated in soot and the dirt ran down my arms.”" Poor little soft mummy's boy, the horrible soot ran all down your arms, how do you think law abiding chimney sweeps manage?
Finally: " Lord Phillips said: “I like to think that I am liberal, but that is not the same as being soft on crime... "
Lord Phillips, you're soft, not only on crime, but clearly everything else. There's nothing here that won't be done by law abiding ordinary people going about their lives doing their normal work or various DIY tasks. If you think that this is being "tough" you have no conception of the lives most people lead. The best thing for you would be to go and live on a "sink" estate for a month, a soft boy like you will soon be the biggest target for every low-life for miles around, I'd like to see what you think of the so called “payback project” then?
Anyway, one bout in the media is clearly insufficient for him so today he returns, criticising prison sentences (no not for being too short). "He said that a five-year jail term was a very weighty punishment but “some elements of the media are inclined ... to speak of defendants being permitted to ‘walk free’ after only five years inside”." Well if you're sentenced to a five year term, normally you'll be walking free after serving about two, also what he fails to address is that many criminals deserve the full five year term, that's why they get that sentence. Many crimes carrying this sentence are weighty crimes where severe violence has been inflicted on a victim, or where multiple crimes have been carried out.
If they deserve five years, then that is what they should get, no matter how weighty it is. It seems the only criteria recognised by Lord Phillips is to "protect the public", but I think this is just lip service, because the longer you keep a criminal locked up, the more the public is protected, don't ever let them out and they'll never re-offend.
He certainly doesn't like the idea of punishment for the crime: "an incitement to the public to exact vengeance from offenders not dissimilar from the emotions of those who thronged to public executions in the 18th century.”" Well Lord Phillips what was the crime rate in the 18th century? Especially if you exclude the things which aren't crimes now? Was the murder and robbery rate per capita higher or lower than today? What about re-offending for these crimes? Oh they were capital offences, so there was no re-offending.
"“I sometimes wonder whether, in a hundred years’ time, people will be as shocked by the length of the sentences we are imposing as we are by some punishments of the 18th century.”" Yes they probably will, they'll be shocked at how we've allowed stupid liberal ideology to dictate sentencing and punishment policy instead of looking at deterrence and retribution.
Lord Phillips, soft on crime soft on the causes of crime.
Tags: crime, punishment, justice
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
