Tag Archives: criminal

The Perfect Criminal

Like a lot of people, I am attracted to stories about certain kinds of criminals. The Robin Hood model, robbing the rich to help the poor is always a thing – smugglers, highwaymen, pirates and the such tend to fall into that category. Anyone who was outlawed for political reasons. Also the vigilantes and people for whom there can otherwise be no justice unless they take matters into their own hands. It’s not ideal, but when the system itself kills and steals, what choice is there but to break the law?

In practice, these are not the criminals who routinely get away with it. Those who can bribe their way out of a situation and those who have friends in high places remain the ones most able to get away with criminal activity. 

Here in the UK there’s a lot of evidence of bribe taking in the highest places. Inappropriate and illegal foreign donations to political parties. Invitations to pay for luxuries suggest corruption. Massive contracts going to the friends of those in power, only for those friends not to be able to deliver in the slightest. What happened to the billions of pounds we invested in a track and trace system? And yet, despite this evidence, nothing seems to be changing. Many people don’t even seem to mind.

We’ve bought into a story that says a certain kind of person is entitled to have a great deal of wealth. The person who claims they can barely make ends meet on eighty grand a year, but who thinks poor people can reasonably feed themselves for 30p a meal. The people who are entitled to have their heating bills paid for them while they do nothing about the suffering of people who can no longer afford heating. 

Are they better than the rest of us? Is the man with multiple children by different partners but who went to Eton somehow intrinsically better than the man with multiple children by different partners who lives on a council estate? Why is the person who takes a few billion from the public purse to give to a family member somehow more acceptable than the person who steals someone’s purse for the few quid in it? Why do we allow ourselves to be persuaded that the criminal in the expensive (if ill fitting) suit somehow doesn’t have to follow the same rules as everyone else?

The perfect criminal takes more than they need. They feel no shame and no regret. If anyone dares to question it, the newspapers can be expected to justify the crime. The police will find there’s nothing to investigate, or that it isn’t in the public interest. The perfect criminal can steal and kill in plain sight with no consequences, because the system belongs to them. After all, if you have taken control of the electoral commission, it’s hardly likely that body is going to question any aspect of how you run an election. 

The perfect criminal is the one who can send you to prison for protesting against their crimes. Currently that doesn’t extend to writing blog posts.


Rioting, prisons and justice

In the aftermath of the UK riots, we’re hearing that about three quarters of the arrested rioters and looters have already been in trouble with the police before. At the moment, the solution of preference is to slap longer sentences on people. But, if these are people who have already been through the prison system, there’s little reason to think another stint inside will change their ways.

A lot comes down to how you understand justice, and what you believe prison is for. If prison exists as punishment only, then it has some function as a deterrent. All the evidence makes clear that deterrents, even extreme ones like the death penalty, flogging, cutting off body parts, do not cause crime to cease. We’ve been locking people up for a long time now, and they still go out and re-offend.

I think to understand why punishment isn’t effective as a deterrent you have to consider why people commit crimes in the first place. On one hand we may have crimes of desperation – theft and violence occurring because people feel (rightly or wrongly) that there are no other alternatives. This feeling of no alternatives will not be challenged by additional risk of punishment. Alternatively, there is an idea I first encountered through Brendan Myers talking about attitudes amongst native Canadians. Crime can be perceived as a breakdown of relationship. Thus the criminal may feel that there are entitled to use and abuse – a might is right attitude for example would lead to this. They may consider themselves superior to others so that they imagine the normal rules are not, or should not be applied to them. They may consider their victims to be inferior, inhuman, irrelevant such that the crime against them does not matter or is justified. This would be true of all hate crime. All of these reasons go with a mindset that will not expect to be caught, and if caught, will not expect to be seriously punished, and if punished, will not necessarily give up the beliefs that underpin the criminal behaviour.

If people commit crime through desperation, social isolation, hopelessness, anger or poverty, punishment won’t fix that. If people do it because they have no respect for anything, locking them up will just reinforce their ideas. And on the other side, putting someone in prison gives nothing back to the victims, there is no redressing of wrongs.

I’m a big believer in getting offenders who have committed smaller offences to do community work that will help them re-engage. This is part of my Druidry, in which justice is a very important idea. Not just any old job that occurs to the powers that be either, but something that will affect them. Cleaning up their own mess, repairing the damage they have caused where possible. I’m also hugely in favour, where appropriate, of sitting offenders down with  their victims and making them face those people as people. That can be tremendously healing for the victim as well.

There are people who are so sick and antisocial in their behaviour that, for everyone else’s safety, they need taking off the streets. Locking them up for a few months or years and then sending them back out won’t fix anything longer term. Prison has to be about re-education. Many prisoners have already fallen through the cracks and have major literacy and maths issues (I know, I have friends who teach in prisons). Many have mental health issues, drug addictions and other problems that need fixing if they are to escape from crime. There is also the issue of violence as learned behaviour. In Strathclyde, I gather, police are tackling violent crime as though it was a contagious disease, taking the stance that people who are normalised to it are more likely to perpetrate it. This makes a lot of sense to me. It means not only tackling gang violence on the streets, but looking at where our young humans learn that bullying pays, violence is fine and he who shouts the loudest and punches the hardest gets to rule the roost. And where do they learn this? At home, all too often.

Domestic abuse is widespread. Children who grow up exposed to not just violence, but disrespect, verbal abuse, emotional, and psychological abuse learn to abuse, and to accept certain kinds of behaviours as normal in their peers and future partners as well. I’m not saying ‘blame the parents’ here either, because abusers do not exist in a vacuum, they exist in the context of cultures and histories, attitudes to women, belief about might and right, and the pernicious belief that if you can claim provocation, violence is ok.

If we want justice, and if we want to tackle criminal behaviour, then locking up offenders is not going to get us either. It is not a solution, just a reaction. It doesn’t prevent crime. If we want to not have rioting and looting, if we want to not have violent gang cultures, then we need to start by looking at the context in which these things happen. I feel very strongly that we need to start paying serious attention to both the direct, and the knock on effects of domestic abuse. Violence begins in the home, all too frequently. If we want to deal with it, we have to figure out how to tackle it there as well.