Randy Cassingham's Blog

Sadly, here in the UK, we are being sucked into the abyss as far as Political Correctness (PC) and ZT is concerned. Our government is little by little giving away our rights under the guise of adherance to European legislation. When one looks to other European nations, they don't seem to be so fussy.

Admittedly, if a law is agreed and passed in Europe, everyone should comply, but sometimes it seems like only the UK does so! For example, in July smoking in public places will be banned and the police will have powers to arrest offenders (good... I'm a non-smoker). In France where they introduced a similar law, the French people have chosen to ignore it - so have the police by all accounts. This is the difference in attitude.

Brits are compliant and uphold the laws no matter how ridiculous - the rest of Europe seems to be more choosy. Who is right? Some balance is needed, but how do you do that when our UK laws are being dictated by the European Union as well as locally? I guess there may be a similarity with the state and federal laws in the US?

Sometimes I despair. The UK is a fantastic place to live, but the long term prospects for our freedom is not encouraging....

I also noticed the story and was (and am) not entirely certain that the police were wrong when deciding to withhold pictures - even if "the Lord Chancellor was furious". Why?

First of all - what is the purpose of publicizing the photos to begin with? It must either be to warn the public of a threat from the fugitives, or to ask the public for help in locating them. Since the two fugitives apparently had their life-sentence reduced and since they apparently had been given day-leaves, etc. I think it is fair to speculate that they were not considered to pose an immediate threat to the public. For some reason, even as fugitives they were not considered to be an immediate threat to the public, and the part of the story provided in TRUE gave me no basis to question that decision with any authority. (I.e. no indication as to whether they were generally violent, attacking strangers in the streets or had been law-abiding citizens up until they killed their wife in a fit of jealousy.)

Second, if you add to this that large segments of the British media is - at least in other parts of Europe - notorious for their blatant disregard of public safety and/or the safety of the people included in the stories they write when they, in effect, place real or supposed criminals in the public pillory, the decision starts to make sense. Take, for instance, the very recent story of the serial killer in Ipswich in December 2006 where several interviews with a man is publicized, many clearly with the angle that he is the killer, and his name and picture provided to the public in the process. He may or may not have been involved in the murders, but fact remains that he was charged shortly after the interview, but later released on bail, and another man remains in custody, charged with the murders. We don't know whether he would have been charged anyway, but it is not unlikely that he was arrested as much for his own safety and then "had to" remain in custody until the police had identified and captured the man they later decided to charge.

Third, automatically releasing the picture of any Tom, Dick and Harry the police might be looking for might not only affect their public rights (making a following trial more difficult), it will also have the long term effect that the general public grows more accustomed to - and subsequently less aware of - these pictures, reducing their productive effect and again reducing them to modern pillories.

So, I do strongly believe that the police did right in trying to assess the pros and cons of making the pictures public. Yes, the fugitives are convicted murderers, but if publizing the pictures does not make the public more responsive to an actual threat and does not help the police re-capture the fugitives significantly faster, then why publish the photos?

Automatically releasing photos is, IMO, mindless following of procedure. Taking the time to decide whether it is actually necessary is not.

If this is twisting language, it's twisting with a long tradition and a global reach.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment of 26 countries on three continents described there, a "life sentence" only lives up to its name in four (Estonia, the Netherlands, the United States (federal and some states), and Vietnam). The Netherlands barely counts, as in the last 62 years only 32 criminals (excluding war criminals) have received a life sentence, compared to over 30,000 such prisoners in the US (life without parole) in 2003 -- http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/lifers_20040511

Of course, in most of these countries, some prisoners never leave prison alive, but this seems to a narrow exception rather than the rule.

According to http://www.usdoj.gov/uspc/history.htm in 1910 in the US, federal prisoners serving a "life term" were eligible for parole after 15 years. In 1976, this was reduced to ten years. Only for prisoners sentenced in the last 20 years or so has parole been abolished for federal prisoners sentenced to life -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment

The only mockery here is the idea that throwing people in prison until they die is justice except in a very small minority of cases.

Yesterday we heard "A US soldier has been sentenced to 100 years in a military prison for raping and murdering a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killing her family" (after bargaining to avoid a death sentence). Sounds a drastic punishment, longer than "life", but it was said he too will only serve 10 years.

I entirely agree with your comments. Life sentences in the UK are just a walk in the park! It is ridiculous to call a short term sentence, life. And their respect for the criminals' human rights borders the ridiculous. What about the potential victims' rights?

I agree with Marc on this one. In the UK, prisoners can apply for parole after four years; murderers are extremely unlikley to be paroled at this point, but often are after nine years if they do not present a threat to the public, e.g. if it was a crime of passion, or was committed when the individual was a teenager, or for some other reason that makes it unlikely that they will re-offend. There are many cases (such as the infamous child serial killers Ian Brady and Myra Hindley) where the offenders will never be released. The problem with removing all hope of release from prisoners is that they have nothing to lose, which makes the lives of prison guards not only difficult but extremely risky.

The reason we no longer have the death penalty is not because of its effects on the prisoners, or even because of the risk of innocent people being executed - it is because of its brutalising effect on the rest of us.

---

In the old days, crowds of people would go to hangings to watch, too.... -rc

I wonder if the blind adherence to policy on the part of police might not be a result of a previous reprimand for not doing so?
In other words, a sort of "malicious obedience" might have come into play, wherein the police are above reproach because they can point to a written poilicy which was followed to the letter without risk of being reprimanded for not doing so.

This is another unintended consequence of government's attempt to legislate for every eventuality without conceding any responsibility to to public servants other than "doing what it says in the book."

Makes it easy for them and hell for the rest of us....

The police reason for not posting the pictures is absurd. "Most wanted" posters are legend in police stations and in local newspapers so that people can protect themselves and assist law enforcement in finding criminals. I fear that we are only one step away from not arresting people because of their race, so that we will not appear to be arresting people - because of thier race??? - or maybe arresting a higher percentage of other people to balance out the numbers of the others being arrested? What about you are who you are, you did what you did, and these are the consequences?

A society that protects the criminals instead of the victims fits the very definition of lawlessness - why doesn't anyone get that?

Our societies, the U.S and the U.K. are suffering from cognitive dissonance. It is obvious from our relative ranking in the world when it comes to raising children. We've got our priorities all messed up. When you can't see what you see and hear what you hear, the psychosis usually sets in.

Just to correct the impression created by your previous correspondent's comment: They were not nearing the end. A life sentence in the UK lasts for life. What they were nearing the end of was their initial prison time.

A life sentence comes with a "tariff" set by a judge. That can be (in exceptional cases) as low as a year. It can be 30 years; any amount. That's the minimum time someone will serve in prison. At the end of the tariff time, the inmate can apply for parole, If they get it (it isn't automatic -- and usually, for lifers takes some years to achieve) they can spend the rest of their sentence in the community, subject to probation officers and recall to prison at any moment if they are seen to misbehave.

Being a lifer out on license is no fun. Simply missing a probation meeting can invoke a recall, and sorting out the paperwork on that can take another year of jail time. (That's a year if you had a cast iron reason, like say you'd stopped in the street on the way to the meeting to administer first-aid to a stranger; had saved their life, and have the police back up to prove it). It's not a lot of fun serving the remainder of a life sentence in the community (I know from having met a few)....But it does save the taxpayer zillions if it avoids locking up people who are no longer a danger.

It does seem that some laws are over-emphasised through fear of litigation. The Human Rights v Public Interest coming up in news stories more often is an example. I assume you heard about drug addicts in prison getting compensation for being taken off drugs (I m not talking about legal medication here, rather the stuff that probably influenced them to commit some of their crimes). Also Health & Safety whilst I agree H&S is important it is often used to justify stupid decisions and a proliferation of silly labelling (Caution may contain nuts on bags of peanuts; iron gets hot in use).

So, I would agree that the police were at fault for not releasing the photos but would guess that it was less their wish to adhere to the Human Rights Act and more their fear of subsequently being dragged off to court by members of a legal profession which is more interested in making money than acting in the public interest.

---

Yes, I even ran the story in the 10 December 2006 issue about the British prisoners suing over not being allowed to use drugs in prison. To settle the suits, the Home Office awarded each of the inmates up to 5,000 pounds (US$9,800) to settle the suits. -rc