|
Randy Cassingham's BlogHistorical Details and Author's Notes from This is True®
|
The Public Be Damned
In the 28 January issue I ran a story about two murderers who escaped from prison in England. I noted the story was an example of "zero tolerance" mentality migrating to the real world:
Free Weird Newsletter
The Public Be Damned
Two convicted murderers are among 13 escapees from a prison in Sudbury, Derbyshire, England, in recent months. But most of the men, including the murderers, are still at large because police won't release their photos, since that could breach their human rights. "When making a decision to release any photograph, police forces must take into account numerous factors including the public interest test," lectured a police spokesman, "whether there is a strong local policing purpose and, of course, the Human Rights and Data Protection Acts." So now what? The spokesman said by escaping, the felons "abuse the trust we have placed in them," and "it's up to us to trace their whereabouts." (PA) ...While it's up to the public to worry about how the police abuse the trust we have placed in them.My tagline led to this reader complaint:
I believe you erred in blaming the law enforcement officials of abusing our trust. They did not pass the Human Rights and Data Protection Act. They are simply left with, I am sure, the unwelcome job of complying with it? Please place the blame where blame lies. In this instance, with the members of Parliament, or perhaps the European Union, whichever is responsible. --Tom, Texas
I did place the blame where it lay: on the police. Their blind adherence to what they perceive as the letter of the law, instead of applying some thought or common sense -- zero tolerance -- is the problem, not the privacy law. Indeed, it went far beyond (as one of the stories this week notes) the "absurd threshold" in their interpretation, which is fairly common in ZT cases.
And that's not just my opinion. The London Times reported that the Lord Chancellor was furious at the police for their decision, calling it "absolute nonsense." Britain's Department for Constitutional Affairs noted that the Human Rights Act explicitly allows police to print "wanted" pictures if it's in the public interest. Surely the public in the area is "interested" to know about escaped murderers running around!
But in that report there was this perplexing detail: The escapees, "[Jason] Croft, also known as Jason Fox, from Salford, and [Michael] Nixon, of Blackley, Manchester, were near the end of life sentences for murder and had been given day release and allowed home visits" when they escaped. They were "near the end" of life sentences?! Oh, how the language has been twisted by our courts! Both had received "life" sentences in 1996 for killing teens. That they're nearing the end of their "life" sentences after just a decade makes a mockery out of the concept. Britain used to hang people for willful murder; now a kinder, gentler sentence is "life" -- but they'll only do that if they can let them out after awhile. You know, after they've learned their lesson. I'm not much of a proponent for the death penalty (I think it should be reserved for particularly heinous crimes), but the system can go too far in the other direction, too.
Anyway, despite the political pressure, the Derbyshire police still defended its position. It said the murderers had been assigned a "low risk" before the Prison Service "transferred them from a closed to an open prison." Gee: do you think if they realized the guys were a flight risk they might have made a different classification decision?
After the criticism, the police did in fact release the photos, proving that "human rights" laws indeed didn't prohibit the idea. As far as I can tell, Nixon is still on the lam; Croft was captured.
RSS
Most Recent Comments
Posted by Duncan, London UK on March 1, 2007:
Re which county Sudbury jail is in (Bev Lawton, 27/2/07 at 10:12pm) -
It looks as though there is a place called Sudbury in both counties. The bigger / more important town of Sudbury is indeed in Suffolk as Bev says. However the prison called Sudbury really is in Derbyshire.
Just to add to the confusion, there are several prisons in Suffolk, including at least one open prison of similar type to that from which these people absconded.
Last point: technically, prisoners "abscond" from an open prison as it really is open. They don't escape. The public protection control is that they risk getting stuck back in closed prisons when they are caught (much less pleasant places). As others have mentioned, open prisons are intended for low-risk, non-violent prisoners and for those approaching release as a half-way point to help re-integration into society at large. At least in theory, that way you reduce re-offending caused by dumping people out on the street with no job and no experience of current society. Imagine you'd been in jail for 10 yrs - how familar might you be with innovations like cellphones, iPods and chip-and-pin credit cards? Oh and that other bane of UK life, the speed and license plate recognition camera.
Posted by Paul, Georgia USA on September 14, 2007:
Strangely enough, this also happened (to me and my neighbors) in the American South in 2002. When local radio news announced the escape of members of a prison work crew near my Clark County home, I called the police to find out what they looked like and what they were in for. I was told they couldn't release that information. After the men were captured (one hiding under a vacant house just down the road) the radio news reported they were serving time for rape, armed robbery, and aggravated assault!
Posted by Ernest, Junee, NSW, Australia on October 10, 2008:
I agree with a lot of the comments on this article, but a lot of people should realise the real people at fault here are NOT the police trying to do their job. It's the stupid elected officials who pass idiotic laws that can see police sacked and worse for passing out information without first jumping through 1,001 silly hoops to ensure they meet all the political correctness rubbish. Many police forces no longer have wanted posters for known criminals with photos as that's seen as violation of human rights? The politicians pass laws to support this while forgetting about the human rights of the general citizens.
There are many such laws that restrict police in the performance of their duties. One not so recent incident in Australia involved all the hemming and hawing about releasing Tasers to the police to use in subduing criminals as an option to use instead of batons or firearms. The final thing that got the politicians to approve the issue of the Tasers was the knowledge that, although being unlawful to own any in the state, many criminals already had them and were using them in various robberies.
let's blame the idiot law makers and not the poor people trying to enforce the laws. After all, if the police violated the laws, most of those complaining at the moment would be the first to complain about the police - and rightly so.
---
While there is plenty of blame to go around, I did address your specific point in the original posting. -rc