|
CrimePage last updated 27/03/05This is another one of those words which is bandied about with gratuitous ease, yet as soon as it is considered we are struck by how deceptive are the brevity of it's grammatical dimensions: small words do not necessarily have straightforward or insignificant meanings. Take 'with' for example. Are they with us ? Who should we be with ? Mummy and Daddy are married but they just don't seem to be with one another in any real sense: war is another small word the meaning of which may not be always necessarily quite clear. The whole milieu of antisocial behaviour such as is typically labelled crime, can therefore be attributed to much vaster, more varied and often opposing concepts about human behaviour than we usually consider when the subject arises, usually of course in the context of dealing with visible and opportunistic forms of official crime.In seeking to examine the concept in it's broadest perspective it is worth noting that crime according to a relatively conventional understanding of the idea has arguably always been the biggest single barrier to simple human progress, though the issue of whether or not it is an inevitable facet of human behaviour is another question. This is to say simply that in every society contemporary or historical whether it be in the case of: an Ancient Egyptian wheat farmer; a Renaissance Artisan working on the Mary Rose; a 19th century Industrial Labourer; or a third rate Lab Technician testing cosmetics on less evolved fauna in a cheap 1960's prefab building, that the main handicap, objection, or reservation toward travailing for personal gain has always been the difficulty of simply preventing the fruits of such endeavour from being plagiarised, purloined, pilfered or otherwise imperilled by ones' fellow creatures. In pointing out that there are other potential candidates for the title of humanity's biggest bugbear, chief amongst which is possibly Disease, and of course War I really am not trying to avoid the obvious point that individuals labelled criminal by official agencies of one sort or another are not always considered bad, naughty, evil, wicked, even reprehensible by their own communities or the silent majority, and the obvious concomitant discussion of the concept of decency, and of course official indecency as it is often seen to conflict with official definitions of criminality. This latter does present a certain amount of difficulty in appraisal as it is not easy to draw a distinct line between events that could conceivably be considered as either criminal acts on the part of the human element, or acts of war, or both, which many acts obviously are. One can always readily say how Oneself feels about crime with more ease than One can evaluate to any worthwhile extent how others might feel about or react to it. Definitions are not the same for everyone, and whilst One could argue quite reasonably that a common understanding of the idea does in fact exist, it would inevitably be a very partial view at best of a huge question which can be said to concern a wider range of social and moral issues than merely the question of living as a typical view would probably have it in an urban environment in a modern economy where matters of immediate unquestionable irritation to any community, e.g. murders, rape, thuggery, arson, and the targetting of the weak and infirm for crimes of opportunity such as are typically dealt with (at least officially) by a professional police force and/or armed forces in the majority of nations today. I must confess if there's one thing that annoys me personally about contemporary stories about crime in the press, it's hearing about all the criminals who're supposed to get legal aid for various shortcomings of the legal system such as the surviving Burglar of Tony Martin the Norfolk Farmer who shot his accomplice (the case attracted considerable attention nationally as it highlighted a lot of the particular problems faced by people with different perspectives on the issue). On the one hand Mr Martin was simply a struggling farmer who became obsessed with the idea that the Police would not be able to provide him any meaningful defence against intruders and thieves in his isolated residence and when the inevitable Burglary came he was adjudged initially, to have committed murder when he shot one of two malefactors in the back and injured the other in what was perceived as an unecessarily high handed manner with a rather larger gun than was necessary. So, on the one hand this brings up the subject of deprived youths from run down estates who have had little choice in the matter of growing up as habitual thieves (which is of course a fairly common everyday topic nowadays), and if there's one thing that's for certain about the issue it's that there is definitely not a single person in the whole Kingdom who can understand a single word of what is published by the powers that be on in the way of crime statistics, which is probably not an accident or coincidence. For example, when it is said there have been so many thousand recorded crimes is that a literal fact accredited by third parties or does it simply mean that the Police have chosen to record so many? Exactly how reliable are these and other statistics? How are they compiled? If we lack a reasonable amount of data on the subject we might as well not discuss it at all. On the other hand we see the plight of a man who felt constrained to shoot someone in the back as he was running off with his property, and whilst no-one condones the cold blooded act, equally no-one doubts the desperation felt by those such as Mr Martin (and indeed myself) who are subject to serious criminal behaviour and must have an answer to the problem or simply give up on the prospect of enjoying happiness, a meaningful life, marriage, children, career and so forth (not much of an option): though in my case it is rather paedophilic teachers and establishment hangers on, treasonably incompetent police work and cynical parasitism of members of the legal profession that I have identified as the source of my own 'urban nightmare.' In general I would proffer the scenario of such, 'white collar' criminals existing within an outdated legal system and profiting immensely from it, whilst giving absolutely nothing whatever in return to the general good as being a real source of criminal malaise in our society today. These people are a law unto themselves insisting on outdated notions of deference, protocol and rank instead of earning respect like decent people, they frustrate meaningful constructive debate which might be taking place, deliberately and provocatively fail to resolve conflicts and are rather enacting expensive charades like some group of fitfully conscientious members of some public school amateur dramatic society than they are managing to meet the needs of the modern state. In general I would be inclined to say that characters such as Mr Martin ought not to be so obsessed with the idea that just because their papers are in order with the people who won the battles of Hastings, Naseby, Blenheim, Culloden, Trafalgar and WW2, that he has any kind of genuinely divine right to the property that is legally his just because it is convenient for the powers that be to uphold his rights in principal to own the goods and property that he does. If I may make so bold as to point out that the 'powers that be,' excuse my reiteration of the phrase if you will, are not necessarily hard working and deserving individuals who have risen on merit just because that is how they portray themselves but are virtually exclusively composed of persons whose background was privileged and whose education and wealth was inherited. One might argue this is really, objectively, no different to the behaviour of those youths from crime ridden urban blackspots who set out to offend against property law and who ought to realise that people will do what is necessary to meet material exigencies, even if it is in general unsporting. The only real difference is the fact that the powers that be don't need to indulge in petty highly visible criminal acts to sustain a dignified economic situation and can in any case rely on a compliant media to say whatever is required about specific events as well as being able to ignore such arguments as take place. Both sides of the divide in such a hypothesis might therefore be said to have much more in common than they have differences if that isn't too ludicrous a proposition insofar as people just want to get things, and tend to justify acquisitiveness in any convenient manner. This is by no means a universal trait however, many societies have evolved vastly different notions of ownership of property or lack of it, not all of them unsophisticated or purely historical. It is for example often quoted allegation that many Native American tribes could never get their heads round the idea of property law and the idea of one man having the right to own territory and property. Perhaps this may seem like sophistry but I feel sure we need to acknowledge these things. All of which isn't to imply any disrespect for or scepticism of property law in the modern state, but rather to point out that the question of who deserves what is definitely subject to a constant ongoing process of negotiation especially while Tony Blair is sucking his thumb and startling his Ministers into various pronouncements and edicts, which they obviously condemned as reactionary when it suited them. I feel it worth restating that the media which report crime stories, besides perhaps deliberately feeding us statistics which are meaningless via well salaried Journalists who are far too well fed to give two hoots about anyones' ethics, are very fond of circulating such stories as the fact that the surviving Burglar from the episode at Tony Martin's farm is likely to be able to sue him, and are unquestionably routinely contriving to portray the working of the criminal justice system as some kind of liberal fantasy wherein evildoers are pampered and have all kinds of meaningful civil rights scrupulously observed, expert legal assistance for litigation against the state readily available. I'm really not taken with storie of journalistic concern for the truth as being very significant in the modern UK and consider that by and large the journalistic fraternity are happy enough to go along with the practise of upholding common misconceptins about the nature of our Democracy for example, also routinely seeking to make out that taxes go on pampering burly beggars rather than in being mislaid among 'white collar' crime statistics or Government computerisation flops. It should be borne in mind that it is worth remembering in principal, that it is a bad idea to accept someone's opinion, to remember to distinguish between facts and opinions in formulating conclusions, and that facts do speak for themselves requiring little or no presentational technique. The recent conviction of Barry-Lee Hastings for manslaughter (he killed a Burglar), again highlights the peculiarities of English Law with regard to the fact of crimes of violence and theft. Many, as in the case of Mr Martin have expressed dismay that someone cannot legally defend their homes to this extent and I personally don't really think that either case deserve quite the sympathy they have elicited. I believe in Texas that if anyone walks onto your property uninvited One is simply allowed to shoot them whilst I don't know the exact stipulation in English law, I believe that if one is subjected to assault one is allowed to defend oneself with reasonable force, which is a fairly straightforward remark. I think what was being said in these cases is that reasonable force was not used, but deadly force and that in these cases it is adjudged to have been used unnecessarily and therefore unlawfully. Mr Martin shot and killed a fleeing teenage Burglar in the back with a weapon more suited to hunting buffalo than for necessary defence of a smallholding and the bloke who burgled Mr Davies had been beaten to an utter pulp and stabbed several times in the back. I really do think that in these cases the standpoint of the Law is in fact about right. The real tragedy here, is perhaps that we do end up putting a figure on someone's life, which none of us really want, which is also to say that those who have taken a life without reasonable provocation will not be required to forfeit their own, or even in all probability the entirety of their remaining span in a Prison. Whilst few of us I believe actually disagree that Murder in these circumstances is Murder whatever the ins and outs of partial or unreasonable provocation there may be not many less who find the fact of property law being unsatisfactory or offering too little protection to characters like Mr Martin. Again I feel it necessary to point out that in many ways we are all the victims of politicians and other powerful interests who are always trying to justify their own remunerative status quo and in doing so they have tried to package such serious problems into readily understandable and oversimplified formats for us fools who don't know better. In the case of crime what we are witnessing on the part of this Government is short termist cliche and spin without substance, inspiration or real long term value. Tony Blair is apeing Thatcherism to such an extent that for him crime is not a serious philosophical issue that requires urgent and serious debate but is rather just another silly little diversion of no real consequence that can be remedied by doing what the last successful Government did, or by muzzling a few advisers, or by making various additional empty promises. I really do find the extent to which we live by means of institutional deceit and hypocrisy, deeply disturbing. The glib self satisfied air with which phony Tony assures us of the value of our high minded Democracy knowing full well that he intends to do nothing more than fail less badly than the Tories in providing good Government, rather puts me in mind of a naked and defencelss Christian muttering prayers in the face of a hungry Lion, given an almost complete lack of evidence that 'New Labour' can really fill the ideological vacuum at the nation's heart in anything like the manner in which his bombast of the nineties crudely suggested it would, or that it is going to be the source of some inspirational spark that the nation is so clearly lacking as the challenges of the 21st century beckon. There is in fact much more that can be said about crime than is readily appreciated: how many for example know that within the last two decades the Monarch has found it expedient to apologise for acts of genocide and land grabs perpetrated by the British against the Maori Peoples. Or that the peace loving people of Benin are still seeking the return of their civilisations' hallmark, elaborate bronzes, cited by many as among the greatest artistic achievements of indigenous African Peoples, taken from this West African nation after a similar genocidal episode at the hands of unscrupulous British Adventurers at the turn of the century. I believe Bernie Grant (recently deceased MP of Caribbean descent) had made something of a pet project of seeing their return from New York's antiques market, where I believe they mostly ended up. There are in fact many such tales involving heirlooms and artefacts variously pilfered or taken with violence or by underhand means in the Imperialist era: The Koh i Noor Diamond is one, the Elgin Marbles another. So crime and the question of doing right rather than of doing wrong, is not merely a question of how to render the children of unprivileged backgrounds who basically never agreed to give a minority of the population an unearned headstart from moneyed family interests amenable to economic exploitation and disinterested in so called stealing; this latter being in all too many objective senses a mere symptom of disbelief in official and traditional rationalisations, dogmas and expediencies regarding property law, fair play, honesty and the intergenerational transmission of wealth which it unavoidably has to be said in some measure, is best tackled at source in removing the institutions of privilege and therefore the obvious disinterest of the have nots in the legal justifications of the haves if the problem of constant conflict over what belongs to who and why is to be avoided. All this fawning by the so called Labour Party on the values of Middle England, and refusing to acknowledge that more Police on the streets for example, as recently advocated by Liz Hurley, will only ever provide an expensive quick fix which will not alleviate the long term problem which is that most people do not believe in the ethos of property rights in contemporary society as it is expounded and enforced by successful interest groups, or at least suffice it to say, that many have obvious reservations: It seems a fair conclusion to suppose that a more meaningful analysis depends on factors much less directly under the control of our own government (such as it has) for example the obvious question of Disease and War in countries producing raw materials for the post colonial economy. I'm not saying that a solution to the question of crime necessarily exists, perhaps people will always steal and plagiarise, by and large it should be acknowleged that they certainly always have. It certainly is not an easy matter to consider by any means but it is worth pointing out that many societies from Ancient Greece to Napoleon's France, Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany have realised the advantage of communal education in developing for example, a loyalty to the state, nation or society in general rather than to familial or factional interests which arguably form the basis for the sort of 'social' conflicts which tend to develop around material issues in comtemporary society. That in our society we often tend to pay mere lip service to nationalistic ideals or that they are at least subsumed to familial loyalties is a proposition which is rather upheld by the failure of recently deceased members of the Royal Family to properly submit all their bequests to the Treasury: eg Princess Margaret gave the bulk of her wealth to her relatives before her death leaving only a residue to be assessed for taxation purposes, which might seem unfair but is neverthelsss a fact. Having therefore said that crime, in objective terms is rather the fact of people taking more than a fair or reasonable share of the fruits of existence rather than those who have not got a lot trying to take more than statutory law permits, some further enquiry as to why this is less than perfectly understood within the context of such an apparently rational species as homo sapien, having evolved such a conflict orientated behaviours with arguably the bulk of resources produced being routinely destroyed in War or consumed by symptoms of other serious social conflicts instead of being put to the general good. I feel that the first part of an answer lies in the historical context: which is to say that people haven't always had modern English in which to express their thoughts, or things like Newspapers and Computers with which to share intelligence, so greed as a human failing for example can be and is often especially in personal terms the result of simple unknowing. Another factor is the consideration that the human race is not entirely rational for which One could cite the evidence of countless acts of irrational self sacrifice and the fact of the species reproducing sexually which dooms members of one gender group to dependence on individuals from the other: the salient worthwhile observation on this is the striking fact that individual members of the species are cursed with a ludicrous inability to behave perfectly selfishly, which is probably just as well or we'd all be toast already. There is also the striking fact that powerful individuals cannot always be restrained by consensus and the lesson has obviously not been lost on the minds of countless generations of advanced primates from Neanderthals to Nero, Napoleon and George Bush. Whilst it may not be possible to draw many worthwhile conclusions from an examination of these facts I prefer to look to the fields of Anthropology and the Social sciences for answers rather than within the context of criminological or causist explanations: clever sounding but merely elaborate and relatively meaningless truisms are perhaps pleasing, decorative even edifying to some extent but in themselves they don't provide or highlight any insights into the practical problems we face in our daily lives. Drone woffle, nargs etcetara.... All this however is a comparatively easy matter to understand than is the simple question of how the fair and consensual distribution of resources may be achieved, which like every sensible penniless scholar in a corrupt but comparatively secure looking Oligarchy I was of course trying to avoid, (lol). It is all very well to study classical anarchism, or preach the overthrow of the state but society has to function tomorrow, schools have to teach children and hospitals heal the sick: the powers that be and the duplicitous materialistic world as we know it mutates with ever more dizzying swiftness in seeking to maintain a hold on an increasingly fickle and better educated electorate and to date, very sadly I haven't been offered a penny for any of my humble efforts by anyone. notes 27/03/05 Last week's news furore over the collapsed reord breaking sixty million pound fraud trial underlines the serious inadequacy of the UK's esoteric legal system and the urgent necessity for some some rationale that is appropriate for the 21st century. It is difficult to avoid viewing the ongoing debate on legal reform as anything other than a full blown crisis in the making when One hears of such statistics as the allegation that 85% of Court cases in England and Wales are returned as not guilty, it also being the case that by and large it is difficult to avoid conceding the veracity of the allegation that not enough criminals or nuisance individuals in the communities are being dealt with effectively and that the legal system is failing to do anything other than annoy those it is meant to serve in far too many instances. Suggestions It seems a fair comment in many cases that a Jury ought to have more options than finding an accused guilty or not guilty. For example the introduction of something like a case not proven verdict could be substituted for a complete acquittal under a verdict of not guilty which would provide relevantly interested third parties with rather more useful information about an individuals relationship with Employers, Law enforcement agencies and impartial juries.
Here we see one or two local bigwigs being assisted in the performance of a con trick last summer by a willing Newspaper Editor and other accomplices ! The article purports to provide an earnest look at the question of crime in the nation at large and can only, with some difficulty, at best be viewed as an attempt to fudge the issue, especially in terms of the manner in which the article (falsely) claims to be providing useful information. In the opening seven paragraphs there are only four pieces of information which lack any meaning at all and these are: that annual figures showed Suffolk recorded 80 crimes per thousand of population; that this was the third best countywide result in england and Wales being bettered only by Surrey and Wiltshire; that there was a detection rate drop of 1.9% in the County for the most common crimes; that Suffolk equalled the City of London and Staffordshire for the best crime detection rate. Without some indication of how many crimes were committed, more importantly how many attempted reports of crimes have been made and obviously, how many reported crimes have been solved, prosecuted or convicted we have absolutely no idea as to what the statistical picture may be regarding e.g. common crimes such as car theft or assault, neither do we have any indication at all as to the general nature of the crime situation in in way at all. Most of these opening paragraphs are taken up with patronising comments of even less value than these worthless remote statistics. The Chief Constable was "delighted," he said that there were factors which made Suffolk perform well (which is a rather fatuous truism), that the people deserved a pat on the back, that his Officers justified investments made and that local taxpayers were important. Obviously these "area taxpayers" were meant to be reassured by what are in the final analysis nothing more than bland assurances. What happens next in paragraph eight is that the Reporter decides to say that las months figures showed an increase in crimes of violence and drug crimes also a drop in vehicle crime and common theft. What I want to know is how he surmised this from figures which one would tend to assume due to the content of preceding pragraphs are in fact those of reported crime but on the part of a casual or perhaps not so casual reader could also all to easily be construed as the number of convictions obtained by the Courts. In paragraph nine he/she returns to the more carefully qualified remark that statistics given for crimes in the County as a total are in fact those for recorded crimes and by paragraph ten we are presented with a slightly useful piece of information to the effect that the regional counties of East Anglia are presently tending to record 50-80,000 crimes annually with Metropolitan Essex about double that. Paragraph eleven is genuinely mind boggling, commencing with the statement that there were so many crimes in a given 12 month period in England & Wales which again ought perhaps to be more carefully qualified, as it could easily be interpreted differently from it's presumably being the number of crimes recorded rather than those committed which is what it actually says and the same is true of the remark that there was a 12% increase in violent crime which as I say many casual readers might take to be an indication of numbers of convictions. What happens next is unquestionably genuinely confusing. Home Office Offiicials are said to be responsible for the rising crime rate because more Police than ever before were recording more, now the only way that can really make any sense, is for hundreds of Police Officers to be recording hundreds of fake crimes reported by hundreds of their colleagues, either that or the Officials responsible are boasting of a vigilante crimewave plot on the Part of off duty Police Officers which has been concealed with extraordinary effectiveness. Either way it might not seem surprising that Mr McWhirter is facing budgetary cutbacks.................. more soon |