The police state is nearly here - Guardian

[Fruitloop]

I have no notion personally of a global moral ledger that must somehow be kept on an even keel by human actions, nor is there any history of it in the Christian tradition on which our legal system is (only semi-fortunately) based. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, after all, and this is strongly reinforced in the new testament.

It's my view that what punishment teaches is the exact opposite of what you think: i.e. that the man with the biggest stick makes the rules. Since this is the very lesson that rehabilitation is seeking to uninstill, the reason why advocates of rehabiltation eschew it is due to its fundamentally counterproductive nature, not some wimpy liberal dislike of being nasty to people.

Enough slaving for the man today: more later.

 

[Azrael]

I have no notion personally of a global moral ledger that must somehow be kept on an even keel by human actions, nor is there any history of it in the Christian tradition on which our legal system is (only semi-fortunately) based. Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord, after all, and this is strongly reinforced in the new testament.

Lady Justice carries scales (for balance) and sword (to deliver retribution). That verse you cite from Romans was intended to stop bloodfeuds, not remove moral balance as a concept. It's not an exclusively Christian tradition but it certainly has its roots in a Christian society.

If you have no abstract moral reason to justify punishment then it becomes a utilitarian containment exercise: which strips away its moral purpose.

It's my view that what punishment teaches is the exact opposite of what you think: i.e. that the man with the biggest stick makes the rules. Since this is the very lesson that rehabilitation is seeking to uninstill, the reason why advocates of rehabiltation eschew it is due to its fundamentally counterproductive nature, not some wimpy liberal dislike of being nasty to people.

Punishment only teaches that if it's arbitrary. The man with the biggest stick can make the rules; and weak law guarantees that he will. Punishment after a fair trial repudiates this view: it tells the criminal that if he abuses his strength it will be taken from him. It instills responsibility. The motives and method of the party exercising strength can completely change the message.

"Rehabilitation" relies on the criminal being held against their will to be "rehabilitated". However "progressive" it claims to be, it's still rests on the same underlying logic.

 

[Azrael]

Just to add, if punishment deters both convicts and would-be criminals then it can't possibly be called "fundamentally counter-productive". It produces exactly what it sets out to achieve.

 

[Luther Blissett]

great. azrael's an authoritarian wearing a 'mask of libertarianism'. don't see many of those nowadays, do you

 

[Azrael]

great. azrael's an authoritarian wearing a 'mask of libertarianism'. don't see many of those nowadays, do you

No, genius, I'm a civil libertarian who supports retributive punishment for properly convicted criminals.

"Authoritarian: favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom."

You'll find endless posts of mine attacking genuinely authoritarian polices like databasing innocent people's DNA, giving the police powers of "summary justice", ASBOs, etc etc. I recently got into a long debate with detective-boy over the right to silence. Some "mask".

Your attempt to paint me as a Murdoch-bot failed miserably, you attempt to paint me as an authoritarian has failed miserably: have you got any genuine points? Or are you going down the route that served Attica so very well?

 

[Luther Blissett]

yes, but what you're espousing is not real libertarianism
a real libertarian stands for liberty, both positive and negative
you're an ideologist (in the marxist sense of the word)
whilst glossing over the abuses that the corporate state metes out to it's citizens, you've negated looking at the causes of crime, and are harsh on the symptoms of poverty and absence of community values, yet you rebuffed bringing back a new model of community/youth centres on moral grounds saying that 'we choose to be criminal/law abiding'....

your partial ideology does not provide solutions, and you appear to have romanticized the penal system before reforms were made as though the bad old days of penal servitude and capital or corporal punishment acted as some kind of absolute deterrent, when the reality is that jails used to be like prisons we see in the Phillipines today - medieval diseases, children in jail for stealing a loaf of bread alongside adult murderers, rapists, and paedophiles. reforms were made by so-called 'liberals' because they were required - throwing out 'human rights' is not an answer

 

[Azrael]

yes, but what you're espousing is not real libertarianism
a real libertarian stands for liberty, both positive and negative
you're an ideologist (in the marxist sense of the word)
whilst glossing over the abuses that the corporate state metes out to it's citizens, you've negated looking at the causes of crime, and are harsh on the symptoms of poverty and absence of community values, yet you rebuffed bringing back a new model of community/youth centres on moral grounds saying that 'we choose to be criminal/law abiding'....

Economic reductivism solves nothing. I'm hardly "negating to look" at the causes of crime, I simply reject your crude poverty = crime thesis for lack of evidence. Criminals cause crime. I wouldn't presume to speak for "the poor" in such a way.

I said we should build "youth centres" (or something a bit more imaginative) but shouldn't rely on them to bribe criminals into being good. Do you really think goodness rests on material comfort? And people call me a cynic!

your partial ideology does not provide solutions, and you appear to have romanticized the penal system before reforms were made as though the bad old days of penal servitude and capital or corporal punishment acted as some kind of absolute deterrent, when the reality is that jails used to be like prisons we see in the Phillipines today - medieval diseases, children in jail for stealing a loaf of bread alongside adult murderers, rapists, and paedophiles. reforms were made by so-called 'liberals' because they were required - throwing out 'human rights' is not an answer

If you think late Victorian gaols bore the slightest resemblance to some Philippine penal slum then you know absolutely nothing about them. They ended Hanoverian penal squalor; our "progressive" reforms have returned it.

Whatever a "partial ideology" is supposed to be, a proper penal system offers much more than these vague pseudo-Marxist solutions to crime. Inconveniently for the Marxist school of thought, the high-poverty/low-crime society of our forebears directly refutes their first principles.

I have no liking for capital or corporal punishment BTW. More lazy assumptions on your part.

 

[yield]

Economic reductivism solves nothing. I'm hardly "negating to look" at the causes of crime, I simply reject your crude poverty = crime thesis for lack of evidence. Criminals cause crime. I wouldn't presume to speak for "the poor" in such a way.

Surely it's self-evident that people seek status and that in Capitalist society status is primarily measured in material wealth.

Whatever a "partial ideology" is supposed to be, a proper penal system offers much more than these vague pseudo-Marxist solutions to crime. Inconveniently for the Marxist school of thought, the high-poverty/low-crime society of our forebears directly refutes their first principles.

Can you elaborate on this point? I think I disagree with you but I don't want to jump the gun. Which historical period are you talking about? Post-WW2 or pre-war? Before the creation of the Police?

 

[Luther Blissett]

'azrael' - i mentioned the term 'ideologist' in relation to yourself, and used that term in the marxist sense of the word -- i didn't actually discuss any marxist solutions, pseudo or real (fyi, I'm no marxist)

you can carry on hurling abuse at the 'left' now

 

[Azrael]

Surely it's self-evident that people seek status and that in Capitalist society status is primarily measured in material wealth.

Some people do seek status, yes. How does this tie in with the "poverty causes crime" argument?

Can you elaborate on this point? I think I disagree with you but I don't want to jump the gun. Which historical period are you talking about? Post-WW2 or pre-war? Before the creation of the Police?

The period (roughly) from 1870 to the 1960s. Crime rates are higher before and after this period. The prison population was around 20,000 (when petty criminals were gaoled for such "offences" as playing games in the street) and crime was not a major political issue. Beat policing was removed in the 1960s, affecting the basic problem of deterring and capturing petty louts by constables who "knew their patch", and, from 1920 onwards, prison conditions significantly softened.

The absurd Thatcherite social vandalism and some elements of post-war welfare and housing policies all played their part.

 

[Azrael]

'azrael' - i mentioned the term 'ideologist' in relation to yourself, and used that term in the marxist sense of the word -- i didn't actually discuss any marxist solutions, pseudo or real (fyi, I'm no marxist)

you can carry on hurling abuse at the 'left' now

Erm, yes, but what does this "Marxist sense of the word" actually mean?

I've yet to "hurl abuse at the left", BTW. I criticised specific elements of its thinking on crime. Criticism you've yet to respond to.

 

[gosub]

yes, but what you're espousing is not real libertarianism
a real libertarian stands for liberty, both positive and negative
you're an ideologist (in the marxist sense of the word)
whilst glossing over the abuses that the corporate state metes out to it's citizens, you've negated looking at the causes of crime, and are harsh on the symptoms of poverty and absence of community values, yet you rebuffed bringing back a new model of community/youth centres on moral grounds saying that 'we choose to be criminal/law abiding'....

your partial ideology does not provide solutions, and you appear to have romanticized the penal system before reforms were made as though the bad old days of penal servitude and capital or corporal punishment acted as some kind of absolute deterrent, when the reality is that jails used to be like prisons we see in the Phillipines today - medieval diseases, children in jail for stealing a loaf of bread alongside adult murderers, rapists, and paedophiles. reforms were made by so-called 'liberals' because they were required - throwing out 'human rights' is not an answer

I redid political compass last week and again found myself in the Gandi quadrant (slightly closer to the centre than three years ago but age, mismanaged public spending and a relationship with crime a Blairite crime analysist described as anomalous will do that) but still I have difficulty classing myself as a libertarian, due to a quite heated argument with the then leader of Libertarian Alliance the late Dr Chris Tame on a EUrosceptic comms channel where he was advocating the reintroduction of the death penalty (ie I don't think libertarianism is what it was) but at the time , as I would now, I based my argument on JS Mills, On liberty, possibly as a result of Dr Tame, I can see how a libertarian can argue for punitive sentencing provided due process is carried out and recompense available for miscarriages. Beyond that with regards penal system only comment would be ; given his record I have severe doubts on Lord Falconer's ability to resolve the current crisis in prisons.

But the thread is "the police state is nearly here" which is so much more than about locking people up, I didn't raise the subject of EUrope but it does apply and I agree with Azrael England and Wales need a different act, one built round limiting the state's right to interfere with people from the starting assumption they are going about their lawful business. EU HRA sits well with Corpus Juris but we do ourselves and the rest of Europe a disservice by not standing up for Habius Corpus.

We open our eggs at the other end.

 

[Azrael]

... I based my argument on JS Mills, On liberty, possibly as a result of Dr Tame, I can see how a libertarian can argue for punitive sentencing provided due process is carried out and recompense available for miscarriages ...

Well put. Arbitrary detention and punishment is the traditional concern of libertarianism: the treatment of properly convicted men is a separate issue.

JS Mill supported the death penalty for murder.

 

[detective-boy]

EU HRA sits well with Corpus Juris but we do ourselves and the rest of Europe a disservice by not standing up for Habius Corpus.

How exactly do you see the Human Rights Act conflicting with the principle of habeus corpus?

 

[gosub]

Well put. Arbitrary detention and punishment is the traditional concern of libertarianism: the treatment of properly convicted men is a separate issue.

JS Mill supported the death penalty for murder.

Not in On Liberty he didn't, how does the state make amends for wrongful execution which from memory could come about for 3 reasons only two I can think of now.

 

[gosub]

How exactly do you see the Human Rights Act conflicting with the principle of habeus corpus?

I'm not a lawyer and I haven't that much coffee yet this morning but looking at it soberly I was talking bollocks, sorry. The stuff you need is in the 98 one.
What I now don't get is how the same administration can pass an act enshrining the right to a fair trial and innocent til proven guilty and then twice after that trot out proposals to empower officers of the state with ability to march people to cashpoints and make withdrawals?


Sorry hadn't looked at the detail, and erronously thought that current calls spouted by the opposition were based on deficencies what with them have access to some decent researchers, and legal brains. Its not. And their cited examples of "absurdities" are quite worrying.

 

[Fruitloop]

Lady Justice carries scales (for balance) and sword (to deliver retribution). That verse you cite from Romans was intended to stop bloodfeuds, not remove moral balance as a concept. It's not an exclusively Christian tradition but it certainly has its roots in a Christian society.

If you have no abstract moral reason to justify punishment then it becomes a utilitarian containment exercise: which strips away its moral purpose.

Punishment only teaches that if it's arbitrary. The man with the biggest stick can make the rules; and weak law guarantees that he will. Punishment after a fair trial repudiates this view: it tells the criminal that if he abuses his strength it will be taken from him. It instills responsibility. The motives and method of the party exercising strength can completely change the message.

"Rehabilitation" relies on the criminal being held against their will to be "rehabilitated". However "progressive" it claims to be, it's still rests on the same underlying logic.

Justitia pre-dates Christianity by a fair old while. And the new testament is pretty damn explicit on the subject.

 

[Azrael]

Not in On Liberty he didn't, how does the state make amends for wrongful execution which from memory could come about for 3 reasons only two I can think of now.

Mill supported capital punishment in a Commons Speech of 1868.

He conceded that the wrongful execution argument was very solid, and admitted that "all compensation, all reparation for the wrong is impossible." But basically said that wrongful convictions are very unlikely under English law due to the presumption of innocence.

 

[guinnessdrinker]

Mill supported capital punishment in a Commons Speech of 1868.

He conceded that the wrongful execution argument was very solid, and admitted that "all compensation, all reparation for the wrong is impossible." But basically said that wrongful convictions are very unlikely under English law due to the presumption of innocence.

unlikely does not mean it does not happen.

 

[Azrael]

Justitia pre-dates Christianity by a fair old while. And the new testament is pretty damn explicit on the subject.

As I said, it's not an exclusively Christian idea.

Retributive justice was the norm of Christian societies for centuries. (Probably rooted in the Old Testament, according to Jesus every "jot and tittle" of which should be obeyed, but there's many references to devine retribution in the New, and earthly society tried to mirror divine society. Some thoughts on it here.)

I'm not a Christian so I'm not bound by scripture. I do find the theory of retributive punishment philosophically covinving, but my support is mainly pragmatic. A fine theory that fails in practise is worthless.

 

[Azrael]

unlikely does not mean it does not happen.

Of course it doesn't. Mill was fudging the issue. I don't support capital punishment, so it's an argument you'd have to make with someone else.

 

[Fruitloop]

I do find the theory of retributive punishment philosophically covinving

Well, we'll have to agree to differ then, because I think it's barbaric.

I don't think you've grasped the theological shift that happens with Christianity - the whole point is precisely that God punishes, and reward and retribution is not for mere mortals. The focus then shifts with feudalism to the person and body of the monarch, and with modernism comes a movement towards restoration and rehabilitation (I do realise this is a hideous simplification, for any historians reading...). At the moment sadly liberal justice is only a cypher, an unconvincing image of what it should be, but the answer is not to revert to the logic of the vendetta.

 

[Gmart]

The British constitution is a medieval fag-end built to restrict monarchs not politicians. As a conservative it pains me to say this, but our ancestors have left us an utter shambles to deal with.

Euro rights are, by and large, positive rights: an idealist concept that aims to offer freedom to do something instead of the freedom from something. Like all idealist concepts, they’re useless in the real world. Unlike our traditional liberties, which regulate how freedom is removed, the Euro rights say it cannot be (although of course they allow it to be severely diminished). This leads to madness like granting gaoled convicts the vote while allowing innocent people to have their DNA filed away. It brings the very concept of having rights into disrepute as a protection for the guilty. Again, dangerous beyond the telling of it. Let’s do the job ourselves and replace the useless Human Rights Act before it’s too late.

I agree with the first bit and we have discussed the need for a written constitution before (see here).

However the second bit is often spouted by anti Europeans as a reason not to learn from their system.

To say that the European system is only about positive rights and then thus dismissing their system because of this is just lazy thinking.

Of course the Europeans have laws against things as well. And so on one hand they have a list of things they can do and a list of things they can't. This does NOT proclude doing something else NOT on the list. When Mobile phones were invented they didn't swan around confused until somebody in authority told them it was OK to use them. And to suggest that their system is not an expression of freedom is just wrong.

They simply have a list of RIGHTS which are impossible to take away. They are used as a guide to ensure that (for example, just off the top of my head) the elected government does not pass a law preventing freedom to congregate (as the first Criminal Justice bill did). It also vastly simplifies the law system with a simple reference to the constitution being adequate to sort out many cases in the Constitutional Courts.

In fact this whole thread would have been much harder to start if we had a constitution and if it enshrined the basic freedoms which we might think of as sacred.

To justify NOT having the discussion and finding what it is we would wish to enshrine thus, is to fall for the propaganda machine which tells us that actually the rest of the world with its 'stupid' system is wrong and that the British population doesn't need such safeguards.

The main question is thus what should be on such a document, and since this is not a thread about this i would suggest the original Constitutional thread for this discussion.

 

[Azrael]

Well, we'll have to agree to differ then, because I think it's barbaric.

But if the alternatives don't work, and crime rises, innocent people suffer instead of convicted wrongdoers. That's far more "barbaric" than properly punishing the guilty.

I don't think you've grasped the theological shift that happens with Christianity - the whole point is precisely that God punishes, and reward and retribution is not for mere mortals. The focus then shifts with feudalism to the person and body of the monarch, and with modernism comes a movement towards restoration and rehabilitation (I do realise this is a hideous simplification, for any historians reading...). At the moment sadly liberal justice is only a cypher, an unconvincing image of what it should be, but the answer is not to revert to the logic of the vendetta.

Whatever "theological shift" there might have been, retributive punishment was the norm in Christian socieites until the 20th century. It was supported by many commited Christians. I think you're over-egging the pudding here. But I really don't see what relevance some obscure theological debate has to the practical business of deterring young hellions.

Vendettas were unchecked and unlimited. Comparing them to court sanctioned punishment is glib.

 

[Azrael]

I agree with the first bit and we have discussed the need for a written constitution before (see here).

However the second bit is often spouted by anti Europeans as a reason not to learn from their system.

To say that the European system is only about positive rights and then thus dismissing their system because of this is just lazy thinking.

Of course the Europeans have laws against things as well. And so on one hand they have a list of things they can do and a list of things they can't. This does NOT proclude doing something else NOT on the list. When Mobile phones were invented they didn't swan around confused until somebody in authority told them it was OK to use them. And to suggest that their system is not an expression of freedom is just wrong.

They simply have a list of RIGHTS which are impossible to take away. They are used as a guide to ensure that (for example, just off the top of my head) the elected government does not pass a law preventing freedom to congregate (as the first Criminal Justice bill did). It also vastly simplifies the law system with a simple reference to the constitution being adequate to sort out many cases in the Constitutional Courts.

In fact this whole thread would have been much harder to start if we had a constitution and if it enshrined the basic freedoms which we might think of as sacred.

To justify NOT having the discussion and finding what it is we would wish to enshrine thus, is to fall for the propaganda machine which tells us that actually the rest of the world with its 'stupid' system is wrong and that the British population doesn't need such safeguards.
The main question is thus what should be on such a document, and since this is not a thread about this i would suggest the original Constitutional thread for this discussion.

Afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick here. I totally support a written bill of rights. I just think the rights on it should be negative instead of positive. (Ie, ban government abuse instead of impose government obligations.) I oppose the European version of the concept for being abstract and idealistic waffle, not the concept itself.

The European "positive" rights can be abridged (the only "absolute" right in the Euro convention is a torture ban). Negative rights can't. They offer more protection. Written bills of rights aren't a European concept: the US Bill of Rights contains them, as does our own Bill of Rights Act 1688.

 

[Karen Eliot]

Quick question to everyone else:

Is this cunt for real?

 

[The Black Hand]

Quick question to everyone else:

Is this cunt for real?

We agree

 

[The Black Hand]

Anyway, wot is the Azshole doing up at this time?

Hasn't he got his swotting to do at university/right wing think tank?

 

[Azrael]

So TeeJay was right Attica, you're incapable of arguing your case. The resulting tantrum is very poor standard, 2/10, if I'm charitable. Which I must be where you're concerned.

 

[Azrael]

Quick question to everyone else:

Is this cunt for real?

Right back at you.

What's the point of this tiresome grunt-talk? Do you seriously, for even a moment, think it's winding me up? Because I just look at it and think you're a fool who couldn't argue their way out of an open door.

Bravo!