One Part of the Jigsaw

A legitimate form of ID card?

Continuing the topic of my posts a few weeks ago, looking at the appalling catalogue of violent incidents of recent weeks, I felt that having criticised what I believe the government's approach might ultimately be, that it was only fair to look at some of the things that I think might actually have some effect on the problems we face. It's a tricky subject and I've yet to see a convincing solution put on the table, while some reports are casting doubt on the effectiveness of existing approachs such as ASBOs.

One of the themes of the sequence of violent incidents listed in the highlighted post was that among the catalogue perpetrators and victims there was a disproportionate number of the young. This is obviously saddening, and the list is not one of statistically significant length, but it tallies all too well with many people's real world experiences. This is not to demonise the young, the vast majority of whom are no more of a problem to society than I was at that age; occasionally a nuisance, but never really a problem. There is however clearly a subset who cause a disproportionate amount of problems to society.

Let's make one thing clear. This subset always existed, but where they would once hang around smoking they now linger round bus stops off their face on cheap alcohol, where they once might have indulged in petty shoplifting they now make more money from drugs, where they once might have been fought each other with fists they now carry knives or worse and don't really care who they use them on. Most of all, in the majority of cases, while once they knew there was a line which they knew once crossed would bring with it the intervention of adult authority; now they know their rights, the weakness of the criminal justice system and the number of their solicitor.

The damage this limited group cause to their own peers is not confined to the direct wrongs they may inflict, but also extends to an increasingly intolerant society to all young people. As I posted a few weeks ago, one of the most important ways you can get teenagers to engage in society is by giving them the right blend of rights and responsibilities in the management of their own lives as soon as they are capable of exercising them within the broad bounds that the reasonable adult world which they are about to enter has the right to expect them to. When you see some of the activities of the feral minority it makes it hard to believe in this principle, but believe in it I still do.

At the end of the day I still believe that the vast majority of people respond best to the challenges that life throws at them when given the greatest possible liberty to make their own choices. When forced or compelled even the most reasonable people can become resentful, especially if the heavy handed intervention of the state is down to a minority. It is impossible though not to consider what should be done about those that exercise those freedoms in a way that goes far beyond the limits of even the most reasonable and tolerant societies, and whose end result is the emergence of wholly unacceptable subcultures within which are found the roots of the evils of the last few days.

I should also say that, while considering myself a libertarian first and foremost, I am not part of that stream of thought that exactly the set same of fundamental liberties that should be offered to adults should also be offered, unrestricted, to children. Without the ability to fully comprehend the consequences of a decision, it is not reasonable to allow a child to have carte blanche to make some decisions. In the ideal world a responsible parent or guardian will act as a proxy in these situations, but we must accept the reality that in a minority of cases no such responsible person exists and we must reluctantly accept the role of agents of the state to fill the role.

I believe that it is in a understanding of basic principals such as these may lie one small part of the solution, and in particular the significance of that point where society hands over fully the rights and responsibilities over someone's life to the individual themselves.

Today, other than in the obvious cases of the age of consent and a few other examples, that point is almost universally at the point an individual reaches eighteen years of age. But when you really think about it, does that make any real sense whatsoever? We were all eighteen once, and to say that everyone was pretty much on some magic plateau with the same level of maturity is absolute bollocks.

Most of the rights offered are keenly sought, especially driving and access to the increasingly limited number of pubs and clubs without an over twenty-one policy; I suspect that sadly the right to vote is felt to be less important but still has symbolic importance. The ability to do any of these things responsibly at the age of eighteen will inevitably be highly variable.

Over recent weeks David Cameron's team have been making some encouraging noises that show they understand this issue. I'm not entirely sure that the idea of suspending driving licenses in of itself would be enough, but I think a wider concept of being able to suspend the privileges of adulthood for a certain time could be effective.

The problem is with the driving license idea is that it would be too hard to police effectively, especially considering the current attitude where the police prefer to focus on those motoring offences that can be policed with a camera and a database.

Sorry, you're just not ready

Suppose though that other rights that are typically awarded at eighteen could be suspended for a period, say as far as 21?

I hate the concept of ID cards with a passion, but for reasons of practicality and with extremely limited purposes, various forms of ID card do exist for young people to prove their age. Imagine that for anyone between 16 and 21 that a single properly managed card could be endorsed by order of the court, indicating that the person in question may be 18 but as evidenced by their behaviour they are not yet to be treated as being capable of exercising their adult rights and freedoms.

Such an endorsement could perhaps be extended as far as the age of 21.

Couple this with a crackdown on pubs, bars and clubs to force them to check this ID card and refuse service to those so endorsed. The same could go for applying for a driving license, voting, buying cigarettes and alcohol down the local off-license and so forth, possibly also to the right to chose you own educational choices at 16.

In there could be a genuine deterrent. Who wants to be among the few people that can't go clubbing because they had shown that they still just behaved like a child and therefore were being still treated like one? Perhaps we may even begin to turn around the direction that peer pressure currently presses.

The endorsement would not be like an ASBO, because there is no pride in not being able to do the kind of things your more mature and sensible friends can quite legally do. It would also be a very genuine punishment, and keep them away from the kind of situations where in their immaturity they could seriously impinge on the rights of others, without the negatives of custodial sentences, or the derision with which many other community punishments attract.

The underlying principle is that the age of adulthood becomes a movable feast.

Those who cannot yet understand the boundaries of how an adult should behave shall not receive the liberties of adulthood at the same time as those who can.

It's pretty draconian in a way, but there is a very real problem. What I'd really like to do is leaven it with some real additional freedoms for those who have not proved themselves incapable of handling them. I can't think of something completely appropriate as yet, but I'm working on it as the majority of well behaved young people, I am sure, could handle some greater freedoms, and they are not just as much, but more affected by the misdeeds of a tiny minority.

As a society we need to distinguish between the two, and offer the maximum freedoms to to those who can handle it, as much as we must emphasise the unacceptability of the behaviour of those who cannot.

Intelligent Policing

More Pointless Signs

I normally avoid the web offering from Sky News, even if it is only because of their annoying habit of pumping every story out through its news feed at least half a dozen times regardless of the story's merit. Sometime I almost delete the feed in frustration, but that would give undue prominence to the BBC coverage, which I wouldn't really want either.

One little story today did both amuse and irritate me.

Many of us will at times have questioned the effectiveness of some of the Police service's many poster campaigns. Most at least have tended to focus on either advice to people to avoid becoming the victims of crime, or on reminding people of offences that they may carelessly commit.

It seems though that the Hertfordshire constabulary has taken things one step further by pointing out the bloody obvious. In a story of how the Plain English Campaign has blasted the posters as an insult to the intelligence it transpires that:

"Don't Commit Crime" is stated on one of Hertfordshire Constabulary's posters - "All fuel must be paid for" has been added on posters at petrol stations.

Source: Sky News

There, doesn't that make you feel safer? No need for any more police on the street, now that the criminals of Hertfordshire know what they are doing is wrong.

A Question of Breeding

Not here Sedley, sorry.

Today's Telegraph shed's a little light on the ridiculous idea from appeal court judge Stephen Sedley, that every man woman and child should be placed on the national DNA database.

He includes the 32 million or more visitors to the country each year, who in the dreams of Sedley will now have a unique form of welcome to the country, by being swabbed and added to a database of potential criminals. He is apparently unaware that in some of the countries whose citizens choose to visit the UK, the concept of a presumption of innocence still holds the whip hand in determining the relative rights between the individual and the state.

It transpires that:

Unusually - perhaps uniquely for an Appeal Court judge - Lord Justice Sedley is a former member of the Communist Party.

Source: The Daily Telegraph

A little further digging reveals that his father, also in the legal profession, was a lifelong communist who died in 1985.

The understanding that even in the eighties, when the true evil nature of communist regimes was becoming understood, that Sedley was at the least still close to those who were supportive of the aims of the self same regimes that Regan and Thatcher were beginning to fight against, begins to explain his cavalier attitude to individual liberties. It helps us understand why he ruled that a twelve year old, profiled but ruled innocent of any crime, must have his DNA profile held on the national database for the rest of his life; for one of Sedley's background the simple claim of 'necessity' from the state would probably be enough to trump any right to individual dignity.

Supporters of the judge may point to his support for the Human Rights Act. Above and beyond the extra wealth the Act has brought to the legal profession, it should also be remembered that many of the communist states that he probably at one time supported also had similar declarations in their systems of law. The problem was that the simple act of enumerating these rights brought with it the scope to limit and place boundaries round them, and it is clear that in the minds of many from the left that a claim of 'necessity' by the state should carry significantly more weight than I find comfortable in considering the need to abrogate such rights.

On a more practical level, there have been a few back of a fag packet calculations floating around, about the cost of such a scheme, generally coming out at about an initial £10 billion, and then £3 billion per year thereafter. This probably goes some way to explain why our government, which has abandoned any real pretence about caring about our liberties, is only luke warm on another authoratarian measure that would normally be right up it's street.

It should be pointed out that these figures are based on the cost of about £70 to process each test, and would come on top of the already spiralling costs of the ID card and National Identity Register scheme.

As someone with a background in genetics I can't really imagine there would even be any significant scope for the benefit of the scale of Sedley's scheme seeing the £70 figure drop. The processes are already highly automated, and at several key stages rely on natural processes that will only ever happen in their own sweet time, regardless of ministerial exhortations to hit targets for faster processing.

What is more likely is that the cost per sample would increase with the inevitable vast scaling up of the bureaucracy that would certainly be entailed. Furthermore, it is likely that the reliability of, and thereby the confidence in the system would fall off with potentially disastrous results. One only has to look at the well meaning project increasing cancer screening, where the inability to maintain the high quality of those involved in the process, and the delegation of skilled tasks to basic technicians has led to some tragic misdiagnoses.

All in all, this proposal needs killing more firmly, and indeed the campaign to get rid of data on innocent people needs to get underway, now that Sedley has ignited the debate.

Yes, a few guilty people will escape detection, but the number of cases where the DNA of someone previously considered innocent of any crime will be much lower than the already quite small headline total figures on the number of cases solved using any DNA evidence.

This is clearly not a good thing, but the dignity of the individual and the right to live one's life with minimum of interference from the state comes first.

As for Sedley, I could never support McCarthyite purges of those whose political past have shown remarkably bad judgement from the bench, but it important sometimes that we try to understand their past, and concern ourselves with the motivations that may lay behind unacceptable proposals carefully wrapped in a tissue of reasonable sounding words.

Update 1:00AM: Having found broad agreement from the good burghers of the village on Sedley's position, an interesting point was raised over such political interventions by senior judges.

Should, God forbid, another case regarding the retention of DNA evidence ever come before Sedley again, is there any hope whatsoever of a fair trial? He's happy for an innocent 12 year old's DNA to reside on a state database for life, so what hope is there for anyone else?

Any decent, fair minded judge would clearly have to withdraw from such a case having made such a clearly partisan position public.

The big question is whether such concepts as fairness and decency really mean anything to authoritarian scum like Sedley, and perhaps that's the biggest worry of all.

Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes?

Deranged LunaticLord Justice Sedley

It was with deep revulsion I heard the vile ramblings of Lord Justice Sedley on the subject of the DNA database. The attitudes of some whose role place our fundamental freedoms at the heart of their thinking is becoming extremely troubling to say the least, and once again raises questions over how the judiciary can enter into a public debate without the slightest semblance of accountability.

For those who missed the deranged justice's ramblings, a precis of his theory is as follows.

• DNA evidence makes it possible to convict more criminals, which is a good thing, but...


• There are a disproportionate number of black males on the database, which is a bad thing, therefore...


• Every man, woman and child in the country, including those on even the shortest of visits should be recorded, to make it 'fair' and destigmatise being on the database.

His reasoning for recording everyone's DNA is a logical absurdity of course. Pretty much anyone who gets arrested these days has a DNA sample taken and thereupon end up on the database in perpetuity. If proportionately more black males are on the database than white males this must be because more black men proportionately are being arrested; this may represent an unacceptable state of affairs or it may reflect valid police actions, but it matters not when it comes to rubbishing Sedley's perverted ideas.

As for the stigmatising aspect, yes I would agree there is a stigma attached to being on the database. If you have been convicted of a crime you deserve the stigma. If you are an innocent person against whom no case in law has been proved you do not, and you should be removed from the database. Simply making sure that every person in the country is on the database does not remove the stigma of being treated by the state as a potential criminal in the making.

What next? Going to prison stigmatises, so shall we make everyone spend a token day in prison (if we had the space) to remove that stigma so those that have served their time may have a chance for an easier fresh start?

The government has rejected the idea, however not in the most reassuring of manners, the BBC reports:

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said there were no plans to introduce DNA profiling for everyone in the UK, but "no-one ever says never".

"We're broadly sympathetic to the thrust of what he is saying. [The idea] has logic to it, but I think he's underestimating the practical issues, logistics, civil and ethical issues that surround it," he said.

Source: BBC News

There are 'practical issues, logistics, civil and ethical issues' that surround ID cards and the National Identity Register, and the new NHS IT systems, but this has not dampened this authoritarian governments enthusiasm for treating us all as little more than state property, even if, especially in the case of the former, the benefits of their expensive schemes are limited in the extreme.

There is also an unhelpful contribution from an Association of Black Police Officers spokesman supporting Sedley's brainless position, equally devoid of any serious analysis of the situation he calls 'unacceptable'.

North of the border, the SNP led government, my attitude toward which swings from admiration to disgust on an almost daily basis, is on this subject on the side of the angels, as is often the case when it comes to individual liberties. Again, the BBC reports:

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said: "On 26 June, the justice secretary Kenny MacAskill announced a review of DNA retention in Scotland.

"In announcing the review, Mr MacAskill said that blanket retention was unacceptable in the relationship between the citizen and state.

"The review is expected to begin very shortly."

Source: BBC News

In Scotland, DNA samples taken when people are arrested must be destroyed where no conviction is obtained or no charges laid, with a very limited exception for certain violent crimes. This is a much more satisfactory system, one where people will feel happy to volunteer samples when it may be appropriate in the course of a criminal investigation, knowing that their genetic blueprint will not become state property for ever and all time.

Leaving aside the consideration of whether a true presumption of innocence can exist once a DNA match is made, rightly or wrongly with an individual, does more DNA data mean for a safer society anyway? Have speed cameras made the roads significantly safer? The evidence is equivocal at best. I'm not convinced that having yet more police officers trawling computer databases is the way we want to go, when the day to day crime that blights peoples lives needs more officers on the street to address.

Lord Justice Sedley should take a moment to look at some of the magnificent declaration of his predecessors in defending the rights of the individual against the state, and pause to consider whether he is fit to stand in their shoes. Then, perhaps if he finds himself in an empty room with a shotgun, he could do the decent thing, and make his own personal contribution to the liberty of the British people.

Update 6:00PM: I was surprised nobody had really sunk their teeth into Sedley's suggestion, but it looks like my news feed was just a little delayed, as Thunder Dragon is breathing fire. In his post he highlights the following positive statement from David Davis, the shadow home secretary:

"The erratic nature of this database means that some criminals have escaped having their DNA recorded whilst a third of those people on the database - over a million people - have never been convicted of a crime...

"It is long past time that the Government answered our calls for a Parliamentary debate about this database and to put it on a statutory basis."

Source: The Daily Telegraph

David Davis once again proves that is possible to have a tough attitude to crime, while maintaining a genuine concern for the liberties of the individual.

Groundhog Week

Another Friday, same old story

It seems pretty certain that if it wasn't fairly pointless repetition I could probably continue my rather depressing posting of a few days ago pretty much indefinitely.

There's such a sad familiarity with some of the stories that you have to read them carefully to make sure that it really is a completely new act of random violence that is being reported upon.

Thursday brought this, courtesy of the BBC:

Police have begun searching for a group of youths seen running away from where a 17-year-old boy was stabbed to death.

...

The victim has not been identified because police are still trying to trace his family.

A post-mortem examination is to be held on Saturday. Two 16-year-old youths have been arrested in connection with the death.

Source: BBC News

Friday saw yet another mindless violent assault back in the Village at the same Pub where the previous week's violence still looks to be heading towards an attempted murder charge.

As yet the predicted 'eye-catching but pointless' policy proposals from the Government have yet to emerge, as the senior members of the government have preferred to concentrate on accusing anyone who has the temerity to suggest that there is a problem of 'scaremongering'.

For what it's worth I am prepare to accept the figures for some classes of violent crime are down. What is perfectly clear though is that this is not the perception of the public at large, and I'm not convinced that we in the general public are wrong in this perception.

Faced with this apparent contradiction, my personal belief that it is explained by the increasing randomness of some of the violence. There was a time when much violent behaviour could often be clearly associated with particular areas, or particular activities, such as football's thankfully largely eliminated problems of decades past. If you avoided these areas and these activities your chance of becoming an innocent victim of violent crime was pretty minuscule.

Today you cannot say the same with such confidence. A substantial part of the violence has its roots in segments of society that exist in every part of the country, such as younger, poorly educated men who seem to have scant regard for boundaries of acceptable behaviour that were once at least partially respected.

Perhaps some of the criticism of David Cameron's comments on 'Anarchy in the UK' are partially justified, but only insofar as he was perhaps guilty of a bit of hyperbole. What is not justified is the complacent reaction of Association of Chief Police Officers president Ken Jones when he...

...told BBC News violent crime was "at the lowest it has been since the mid-1990s".

...

He said he was therefore "baffled" by comments relating to high crime levels.

Source: BBC News

He went on to accuse 'people', by who he clearly must mean Cameron and his team of "distorting the figures for their own ends". I didn't actually notice any figures being distorted, and certainly Mr Jones gave no examples. David Cameron was just reflecting the concerns of the British people about this subject, and that is part of the job of the leader of the opposition.

As it happens, it should also be part of the job of Mr Jones and the members he represents.

That Was the Week that Was

All but one of these stories will be familiar to almost anyone, after seven days of sickening headlines.

Wednesday:

"The mother of 11-year-old Rhys Jones cradled her dying son in her arms after he was shot on his way home from football practice, a friend has said."

...

"Witnesses said a youth on a BMX bicycle, who had his face covered with a hood, rode up to the car park and fired three shots."

Source: BBC News

Thursday:

"Three people, including two teenagers, have been charged with murder after a man with learning difficulties was attacked by a gang.

Brent Martin, 23, died in hospital after being found injured in Town End Farm estate in Sunderland on Thursday."

Source: BBC News

Friday:

Even the Village, a quiet, affluent London suburb was not immune. On Friday night a man was beaten to unconsciousness at one of the local pubs in an assault that involved broken glass wounds and repeated striking of the victim's head with a heavy bar stool.

The police are reported to be treating the incident as attempted murder.

Source: Personal Account

Saturday:

"A teenager has appeared in court charged with killing a man who died following a street attack on Tyneside. Thomas Fellows, 51, suffered fatal head injuries in the incident in Wallsend, early on Saturday."

...

"Jeffrey Gosling, 18, of Hazelwood Terrace, Wallsend was initially charged with assault, but was re-arrested and charged with manslaughter[sic]."

Source: BBC News

Sunday:

"Three men are appearing in court today charged with murdering a man just hours after his 21st birthday.

David Haynes was knifed outside a kebab shop in Wellingborough, Northamptonshire, in the early hours of Sunday."

...

"Two, aged 26 and 24, come from Wellingborough - the third, a 22-year-old, is from Northampton."

Source: Sky News

Monday:

"Five male youths have been arrested after the sudden death of a 95-year-old man in Wiltshire.

Three of the youths being questioned are aged 17, and the other two are aged 15."

Source: BBC News

Tuesday:

"Police are investigating two shootings, one involving a 14-year-old boy, at the Notting Hill Carnival.

The youngster was injured on Monday night, at the junction of Portnall Road and Harrow Road in Kensal Town.

Earlier, a 17-year-old was taken to hospital with a shoulder wound after shots were fired. A man in his 20s was injured in a stabbing."

Source: BBC News

H/T Dizzy Thinks

It doesn't make for very pretty reading. At the moment we are hearing very little from the government other than the usual messages of regret well intended as they may be, and some complacent references to gun-crime statistics, aided and abetted by a piece of weak analysis by the BBC as highlighted by the Croydonian and Dizzy Thinks.

I'm sure that we will soon be faced with an eye catching initiative or two, the need to be seen to be doing something becoming almost overwhelming. The roots of the problem are very complex, and not easily curable with the type of headline grabbing initiatives that the government tends to prefer. I do expect them though to stay true to type. You can't tax illegal activities, pretty much halving their preferred options, so expect something to be banned.

I might have some sympathy with further restrictions on replica weapons, though if they do act in this regard I suspect it will be typically clumsy and authoritarian NuLab fare. I really can't believe that it's beyond the wit of man to produce a replica or deactivated weapon that is to all intents and purposes impossible to convert into a functional firearm, but I have a sneaking suspicion that a blanket ban would be more typical NuLab fare, impacting most greatly on people pursuing a perfectly legal hobby.

Another option may be an airgun ban, especially as it would relieve a pressure point with relations with the Scottish Parliament. A Very British Dude has just written a fine post highlighting the inanity of most of NuLab's firearm legislation, but even when you consider his thoroughly sensible arguments and the fact that none of the incidents of the last week or so have involved airguns, the desire of the government to be seen to be taking decisive action, even if it is wholly pointless action, should not be underestimated.

The real problems are much harder to address, and even the mother of Rhys Jones, to whom, along with the family and friends of all of the victims of the last week or so all our sympathy must go, seemed to acknowledge this fact when she questioned the role of the parents of those who may be involved in her son's death.

There are no easy solutions out there, certainly no quick 'tax it or ban it' ones. There are deeper issues in sections of society that need to be examined, and tackled with a longer term perspective. There are attitudes that have become ingrained in parts of the public's psyche that need to be challenged, and even more so those in the minds of policy makers whose presumptions and theories seem so patently to be failing.