Nature is amoral. There is no "force of good" in the Universe. Nature has no ethics. We have to develop our own. Equally, there is no "force of evil". Yet evil acts do occur. What therefore is evil; and what should we do about it?

There is only one fundamental moral law: Mutual Respect. Thus there can be only one fundamental crime: Disrespect. All crimes fall into one of the attitude-to-life categories involving disrespect of other people. The most common criminal attitude is "I’m OK, you’re not OK". It covers the whole range of crime, from small-scale thievery, through mugging, to fraud, drug pushing, rape, and murder. The rarer attitude "I’m not OK, you’re not OK" tends to be associated with psychopaths, and some suicides.

"Suicide is the worst form of murder, because it leaves no opportunity for repentance." {John Collins}

From time to time, many people have moods involving disrespectful attitudes, but they restrain themselves from acting on them. Like the views of a friend of mine, a lapsed Roman Catholic, I suggest that we should regard such thoughts neither as sins, nor crimes. Once disrespectful thoughts become translated into words or actions, however, then a crime has been committed. We do not need thought police, but action, or incitement to action, does require policing.

Crime of any kind creates practical problems for other members of society. How should one (can one?), act respectfully towards another person when that person has not respected others? The Christian admonition of turning the other cheek has, wisely, never been applied in any formal legal system, even in so-called Christian countries. In the short term it would lead to anarchy; in the long term to extinction. Another religious concept "An eye for an eye..." is little better. It is debatable whether it acts as a deterrent. It is certain that it has provided no remedy. There seems to me to be no current legal system which addresses the two basic problems that crime creates:

a. the problem for victims as individuals;
b. the problem for society of how to treat the criminal.

The former is quite as important as the latter. Society needs to maintain its respect for both the victim and the criminal, and each should try to recover respect for the other. It is a sad commentary on current attitudes that the victim often suffers as much disrespect as the criminal. "Silly old goat, leaving all his money in his tea caddy!" or "What did she expect, walking the streets dressed like that at that time of night?" I have even heard it said, quite seriously, that people should be prosecuted for putting temptation in a criminals path by, for example, leaving cars unlocked or house doors open. Even UK government ministers have blamed the rise in house breaking on inadequately protected homes; by implication blaming the victims.

It can be a hugely traumatic experience to be a victim. Victims may need extensive counselling as well as compensation. At present in the UK, with the volunteer Victim Support Scheme, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, something is achieved sometimes, but often too little too late. Where practical, I would like to see the criminal helping to compensate the victim. At present if you are mugged, you are mugged. You don’t get your money back, whether the robber is caught or not. Criminals should take full responsibility for any crime, not merely accept their sentence as part of the price for their selected way of life.

It has been historical practice to try to develop penal codes from the precept: the punishment should fit the crime. This approach seems so obvious that it usually taken for granted. I would claim, however, that it is a naive approach. I would go further. Over the years, it has been the root cause of the failures of all previous criminal justice systems. It creates, and perpetuates, in the minds of criminals and the public alike, the view that, having "paid" for their crime, criminals, if so inclined, are free to resume their previous way of life. So often their attitude seems to be: "When I get out I’ll get my own back", or " I wont get caught like that again".

Punishment should not fit the crime. Punishment should fit the criminal. A convicted criminal should not be released from any sentence, custodial or otherwise, until he or she has made what atonement is possible. This would mean having done all things practicable to compensate the victim, and also having (re)acquired respect for other people, and self-respect too where applicable. In other words we should regard crime much as we regard illness or disease. The criminal, or "patient", should not be discharged from "treatment" until cured, however minor the "illness".

There should be no plea bargaining in order to reduce one’s sentence. It is not the number or nature of crimes which need to be taken into account, but the nature of the criminal. If a master criminal is convicted of stealing a piggy bank, he or she should be subject to exactly the same condition for release as if the crime had been a £200 million fraud of a pension fund. A crime is a crime is a crime. It is not an abstract concept, to be measured on some arbitrary scale. All crimes are equivalent acts of disrespect, committed by real people, with real victims.

People to whom I have mentioned this idea have usually been sympathetic to it , but thought it would be impractical. "How could it possibly be implemented?", they ask. The answer is simple. The mechanism is already in place in many countries. We just have to broaden its application.

At present, if criminals are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, they rarely remain in gaol for the maximum term. After a reasonable time has passed the case is reviewed. If the parole board, the prison authorities, the probation service, and others no doubt, are satisfied, a period of parole is offered. Sometimes early release is granted when it is judged that a criminal can safely return to society. I am merely advocating that this mechanism should be applied to all sentences. The decision would involve not only whether a criminal should be released from custody, or from whatever constraints the sentence imposed, but also would determine whether the sentence should be continued. Currently such judgements are often made taking into account "remission for good behaviour" in prison.

What is really needed is a closer assessment of what kind of behaviour will be adopted after release. At any trial, the length of a guilty person’s sentence would not be stated, only whether or not it was to be initially custodial. Until it is considered safe to revoke a sentence, it should remain in force indefinitely.

The emphasis of the prison service, and probation service, would be more on rehabilitation. A sentence, of any kind, should be aiming to teach people how not to be criminals. At present many young criminals "learn their (criminal) trade" in custody. In some full sense of the word, an "examination" would be made of and taken by the criminal (ex-criminal by then, we hope) to obtain release. This would include a review of any practical steps to compensate the victims. The victims may be consulted and even could have helped with the rehabilitation.

Am I being unduly "soft on crime", by concentrating on rehabilitation? No; I take this line only after criminals have been apprehended. We are then trying to be civilised, and respectful of their person, avoiding the charge of cold bloodedly "descending to their level". A criminal in the course of committing a crime is to be regarded as an outlaw, that is, outside the law. Someone actually demonstrating disrespect for others, by word or deed, deserves no respect. While acting criminally, criminals should not have the protection of the law. There should be no question of muggers, or burglars, being able to sue their victims for injuries acquired by their victims’ defending themselves. A policeman should certainly be able to box a youth’s ears who is making a disrespectful disturbance. In a terrorist context, there should be a shoot-to-kill policy during terrorist attacks. In the heat of the moment, those who are showing disrespect to others are not worthy of our respect, until they surrender, or are captured. Then the civilised due process of the law is to be reinstated.

The above arguments lead to a new way of conducting court trials. At present, almost all cases are complicated by the fact that several aspects are being pursued simultaneously, all of which are taken into account in determining of what, if anything, the defendant is guilty. It would be fairer to all, and less costly in the long run, to proceed by easy stages:

a. Establish that some crime had been committed. Was a law potentially or actually broken?

b. Determine whether the defendant was responsible. Did he or she do it or cause it?

c. Conclude whether the defendant was to blame. Did he or she do it on purpose? Was there provocation, accident, or misunderstanding?

d. Decide a verdict.

e. Choose a sentence, custodial or otherwise.

f. Set up a rehabilitation programme and at suitable intervals adjudge whether the (former?) criminal has been "cured".

A significant aspect of this sequence is the separation of stages b & c. This should produce a more balanced outcome. At present motive is too great a factor in trying to conduct a case. Furthermore, defendants are encouraged to plead "not guilty" in order to have a whole range of extenuating circumstances invoked as soon as possible, in case they are found guilty. "A court of law is not constituted to establish the truth; its verdict is in accordance with the evidence." {Police training Manual}

In the jury room today I am sure there is sometimes the Alice-in-Wonderland consideration of "Sentence first, verdict afterwards." "The evidence is a bit confusing. She will get 10 years if we find her guilty. I wouldn’t want that on my conscience." My suggestion is simple: facts first, reasons afterwards, sentence (if guilty) unbounded. This will simplify everyone’s task. It will also avoid many miscarriages of justice.

The final step, "f.", would reduce the number of recidivists. Currently too high a percentage of prisoners have been there previously. In 1992, for example, it was estimated that, in England, two thirds of young offenders returned to prison after being released. Purely arithmetically, if they had not been released in the first place, merely because they has served their time, this percentage would be reduced significantly. At the very least the subsequent crimes, loss or trauma to the victims, and cost of court hearings, would be eliminated.

I consider such a scheme to be a just balance between "Lock them up and throw away the key", and the "Three strikes and you’re out!" approach in the USA where some states give life sentences for the third offence, even if it is stealing a slice of pizza. Hardened unrepentant "incurable" criminals would gradually be removed from society, debilitating organised crime as the leaders were permanently incarcerated for such "minor" offences as tax evasion or disorderly behaviour. On the other side of the coin, there would be fewer custodial sentences for non-violent crimes. Our gaols are bulging. If probation, community service, and remedial training were to continue until the "cure" was complete, I’m sure they all would be taken more seriously and hence be more effective. In all senses, the cost of crime to society would fall.

return to Contents

go to Discrimination

View my guestbook