According to reports, the Government is now considering bringing the blood-alcohol limit for drivers down from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood.
Well, if it saves just one life ...
It's utterly pointless. And it will bring the current law (which, incidentally, I approve of wholeheartedly) into disrepute. Tim Worstall takes it apart quite effectively here. I won't repeat what he says, except to reiterate that Britain has the highest blood-alcohol limit in Europe, and the lowest number of accidents per mile travelled, so we must be doing something right.
But the proposal gains a gold star for Completely Missing The Point.
There was a case recently (sorry, lost the link) where a fatal accident occurred on a road with a 60mph limit, where the car involved was said to be travelling at about 80mph. There was the predictable outcry and the call for "something to be done", and one of the recommendations was to reduce the speed limit of the road from 60mph to 30mph.
Does anyone seriously think that the driver would obey a lower limit if he was clearly willing to ignore a higher one? Did he say to himself, "I think I will keep to about 20 mph over the posted limit, and whoops! this is now a 30 area so I will slow down to 50"? Of course not. Speed limits only work if people obey them; if people don't obey them, the actual limit is irrelevant.
And so it is with the drink-drive laws. Ever notice how many people are caught at two and three times over the limit? Far more than would be expected from a normal distribution of blood-alcohol levels in the driving population. When people go over, they tend to go way over. It seems to me that the 80mg limit (which allows for a drink or perhaps two) is very good at keeping the majority of the driving population down to a reasonable level. For those who do drink and drive to excess, it doesn't matter whether the limit is 80, or 50, or zero - they are going to drink and drive no matter what. All that reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg will do is to penalise responsible drivers. These drivers may well modify their behaviour to stay within the lower limit, but these weren't the people causing the problem in the first place. The change would make no difference to the accident rate, but would make criminals out of ordinary folk, and lead to further erosion of the idea that laws are obeyed by consent, not authoritarian compulsion.
Criminalising ordinary people, while leaving the real criminals unaffected and making no difference to the crime rate? Now where have I heard that before?
There is a good argument to be made that a realistic limit like 80mg is far more effective in reducing the number of accidents (which is surely the aim) than a more stringent lower limit. If people are going to drink and drive anyway (and they will - our whole society is structured around it, especially out of the towns and cities), then better a higher limit that people will respect and comply with, than a lower limit that everyone will ignore. Only if your purpose is to catch people and punish them, rather than reduce accidents, does the 50mg limit make sense.
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label laws. Show all posts
Monday, 15 March 2010
Legislation, Legislation, Legislation
If you are a government, and something is happening that you want to stop, it seems to me you have three options: incentivisation, education, and legislation. Let's say you want people to separate recyclable stuff from general waste in their rubbish. You can:
1. Make it worth their while, by giving a rebate for recycled materials
2. Explain to them why recycling is good, and rely on their good nature to comply
3. Pass a law threatening penalties if they do not comply.
1. is almost certainly the best option in terms of compliance, and has the added bonus of making people feel good about what they do. If I managed to separate out fifty bags of recyclables over a year, and earned £100 off my next year's Council Tax bill, I would call that a good bit of work. I would work even harder next year to recycle more, and I would feel in tune with the Council who were organising the scheme, as I could see immediate personal benefits to me for doing so. It's a win-win. The only downside is that these rebates will cost the Council money, but it wouldn't take a Nobel mathematician to work out a way of making it cost-neutral by increasing the charges for non-separated waste.
2. is warm and woolly, and does not cause resentment, but has great variability in its effectiveness. Done well, with humour and pizzazz, it could be very effective indeed, but somehow you don't associate local authorities with humour or pizzazz in any form, and so the likely outcome is poor.
3. is probably quite effective overall, and there is a significant financial advantage in that those who do not comply will provide significant revenue in the form of fines. However, there are two big disadvantages: a lot of energy and ingenuity will go into circumventing the scheme (such as putting your rubbish in other people's bins after dark) which will need investigation and enforcement action, both of which cost money, and the general public are mightily pissed off by yet another threat of fines or worse if they don't do as their masters tell them, leading to a further deterioration in the relationship between rulers and ruled.
Any common-sense approach would surely combine 1 and 2, with 3 as a last resort if the others fail (and a better way cannot be found). But what has gone wrong in the last 13 years is that 3 is the only way anyone can think of getting anything done.
People harming themselves by smoking? Ban it.
People following an activity you don't approve of? Ban it.
People not recycling enough? Fine them.
And so we come to the greatest achievement of 13 years of Labour government. Since Tony Blair took office in the heady days of 1997, the government has created 4,300 new offences.
FOUR THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED NEW CRIMES. That's 28 per month, or almost one a day.
Four thousand, three hundred ways of getting on the wrong side of the law and being fined or, in the worst case, imprisoned. And for what?
* Carrying grain on a ship without a copy of the International Grain Code on board
* Unauthorised fishing in the Lower Esk River
* Obstructing an authorised person from inspecting apple, pear, peach or nectarine orchards for the purposes of ascertaining whether grubbing up has been carried out
* Failure to attend a hearing by a bus lane contravention adjudicator
* As a merchant shipping officer, falsely claiming a door is closed and locked
* Selling non-native species such as a grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
* Obstructing workers carrying out repairs to the Docklands light railway
* Keeping a dog on a lead longer than a maximum length in a designated area
* Using an automatic rail-weighbridge which has a disqualification sticker on it
* Not having a licence for a church concert.
Just ask yourself: whan was the last time you did something you wouldn't normally do because the Government made it worth your while to do so, rather than because you couldn't afford the fines if you didn't obey?
I despair.
1. Make it worth their while, by giving a rebate for recycled materials
2. Explain to them why recycling is good, and rely on their good nature to comply
3. Pass a law threatening penalties if they do not comply.
1. is almost certainly the best option in terms of compliance, and has the added bonus of making people feel good about what they do. If I managed to separate out fifty bags of recyclables over a year, and earned £100 off my next year's Council Tax bill, I would call that a good bit of work. I would work even harder next year to recycle more, and I would feel in tune with the Council who were organising the scheme, as I could see immediate personal benefits to me for doing so. It's a win-win. The only downside is that these rebates will cost the Council money, but it wouldn't take a Nobel mathematician to work out a way of making it cost-neutral by increasing the charges for non-separated waste.
2. is warm and woolly, and does not cause resentment, but has great variability in its effectiveness. Done well, with humour and pizzazz, it could be very effective indeed, but somehow you don't associate local authorities with humour or pizzazz in any form, and so the likely outcome is poor.
3. is probably quite effective overall, and there is a significant financial advantage in that those who do not comply will provide significant revenue in the form of fines. However, there are two big disadvantages: a lot of energy and ingenuity will go into circumventing the scheme (such as putting your rubbish in other people's bins after dark) which will need investigation and enforcement action, both of which cost money, and the general public are mightily pissed off by yet another threat of fines or worse if they don't do as their masters tell them, leading to a further deterioration in the relationship between rulers and ruled.
Any common-sense approach would surely combine 1 and 2, with 3 as a last resort if the others fail (and a better way cannot be found). But what has gone wrong in the last 13 years is that 3 is the only way anyone can think of getting anything done.
People harming themselves by smoking? Ban it.
People following an activity you don't approve of? Ban it.
People not recycling enough? Fine them.
And so we come to the greatest achievement of 13 years of Labour government. Since Tony Blair took office in the heady days of 1997, the government has created 4,300 new offences.
FOUR THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED NEW CRIMES. That's 28 per month, or almost one a day.
Four thousand, three hundred ways of getting on the wrong side of the law and being fined or, in the worst case, imprisoned. And for what?
* Carrying grain on a ship without a copy of the International Grain Code on board
* Unauthorised fishing in the Lower Esk River
* Obstructing an authorised person from inspecting apple, pear, peach or nectarine orchards for the purposes of ascertaining whether grubbing up has been carried out
* Failure to attend a hearing by a bus lane contravention adjudicator
* As a merchant shipping officer, falsely claiming a door is closed and locked
* Selling non-native species such as a grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
* Obstructing workers carrying out repairs to the Docklands light railway
* Keeping a dog on a lead longer than a maximum length in a designated area
* Using an automatic rail-weighbridge which has a disqualification sticker on it
* Not having a licence for a church concert.
Just ask yourself: whan was the last time you did something you wouldn't normally do because the Government made it worth your while to do so, rather than because you couldn't afford the fines if you didn't obey?
I despair.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
Justice: what the police feel up to on the day
There's a very sad story in the Torygraph:
Police officers will not recover a victim’s stolen van believed to be at a “volatile” travellers’ site because it could “put officers’ lives at risk”, it has been claimed.
A market trader called Christopher Sims was approached by some shady characters asking if he would sell his Mercedes van for spares. He refused, but took a note of their registration numbers. A few days later, his van was stolen. He passed all the details to police, who confirmed that they knew the numbers he gave them, and that they knew where his van was (on a local travellers' site), but that they were not willing to go there because it might put officers at risk.
Impressed by the public service ethos, clear championing of the innocent victim, and sheer guts of our boys in blue? I am. It reminded me of an incident close to where I live a few years ago. I live near to the A40, on the route to the Fishguard ferry to Ireland. There is a small petrol station and convenience store there, where I often pop in for a newspaper. One day, the forecourt filled up with old vans and lorries, and the people in them got out and started swarming about the place. They filled up the vehicles, while their children went into the shop and started filling their pockets. They emptied the shop, and then advised the lone attendant that he would be well advised not to demand payment for the goods or the fuel, and left.
Shaken, he called the police with descriptions of the vehicles and their registration numbers. It wouldn't be hard to track them down - they were very distinctive, and heading for Fishguard, and there's only one road. All the police had to do was follow them, pull them over, and sort it out. In fact, the police did respond, although not quickly enough to apprehend the criminals near the scene, and met them instead at the ferryport. Did they stop them getting on the ferry, arrest them, and bring charges for, at the least, theft and threatening behaviour? Did they impound and then search the vehicles? No. They negotiated with the travellers' leaders, and suggested that they had a whip-round. The travellers collected £250, which they gave to the police, and then were free to go. The police then gave the money to the petrol station and told them that, as far as they were concerned, the matter had been dealt with as well as possible and the case was closed.
The loss to the garage (a small, locally-owned concern) was possibly ten times what they eventually received, and the poor lad who was serving on that day was so shaken that he didn't work there again.
There was a time when there was right, and there was wrong. The police supported those who were right, and pursued and arrested those who were wrong. There was no calculation of cost and benefit - if someone had broken the law, then it was imperative to make every effort to catch them, whatever they had done. Pour encourager les autres, if nothing else. Now, it seems that right and wrong are contingent concepts.
If someone burgles your house, it's partly your fault for not having better locks.
If someone robs you, it's partly your fault for using an expensive mobile phone in the sight of others.
If someone steals your savings, well, you shouldn't have been so rich, should you?
And if there is a crime that is going to be difficult or (God forbid) dangerous to investigate, then the police can refuse to do so, on the grounds that it was only an old van, and those travellers can be violent if provoked, and less said the better, eh son?
And so the police can sit on their fat arses eating doughnuts, and going after soft targets like speeding motorists, Christian hotel-keepers and people who have the foolish temerity to take photographs in public places. While the real criminals - the violent, the anti-social - get treated with kid gloves.
Ask anyone, ask anyone, whether they would prefer a country where dangerous and violent people were brought to justice, whatever the cost, or one where everyone kept to the speed limits.
Who do the police actually serve?
Police officers will not recover a victim’s stolen van believed to be at a “volatile” travellers’ site because it could “put officers’ lives at risk”, it has been claimed.
A market trader called Christopher Sims was approached by some shady characters asking if he would sell his Mercedes van for spares. He refused, but took a note of their registration numbers. A few days later, his van was stolen. He passed all the details to police, who confirmed that they knew the numbers he gave them, and that they knew where his van was (on a local travellers' site), but that they were not willing to go there because it might put officers at risk.
Impressed by the public service ethos, clear championing of the innocent victim, and sheer guts of our boys in blue? I am. It reminded me of an incident close to where I live a few years ago. I live near to the A40, on the route to the Fishguard ferry to Ireland. There is a small petrol station and convenience store there, where I often pop in for a newspaper. One day, the forecourt filled up with old vans and lorries, and the people in them got out and started swarming about the place. They filled up the vehicles, while their children went into the shop and started filling their pockets. They emptied the shop, and then advised the lone attendant that he would be well advised not to demand payment for the goods or the fuel, and left.
Shaken, he called the police with descriptions of the vehicles and their registration numbers. It wouldn't be hard to track them down - they were very distinctive, and heading for Fishguard, and there's only one road. All the police had to do was follow them, pull them over, and sort it out. In fact, the police did respond, although not quickly enough to apprehend the criminals near the scene, and met them instead at the ferryport. Did they stop them getting on the ferry, arrest them, and bring charges for, at the least, theft and threatening behaviour? Did they impound and then search the vehicles? No. They negotiated with the travellers' leaders, and suggested that they had a whip-round. The travellers collected £250, which they gave to the police, and then were free to go. The police then gave the money to the petrol station and told them that, as far as they were concerned, the matter had been dealt with as well as possible and the case was closed.
The loss to the garage (a small, locally-owned concern) was possibly ten times what they eventually received, and the poor lad who was serving on that day was so shaken that he didn't work there again.
There was a time when there was right, and there was wrong. The police supported those who were right, and pursued and arrested those who were wrong. There was no calculation of cost and benefit - if someone had broken the law, then it was imperative to make every effort to catch them, whatever they had done. Pour encourager les autres, if nothing else. Now, it seems that right and wrong are contingent concepts.
If someone burgles your house, it's partly your fault for not having better locks.
If someone robs you, it's partly your fault for using an expensive mobile phone in the sight of others.
If someone steals your savings, well, you shouldn't have been so rich, should you?
And if there is a crime that is going to be difficult or (God forbid) dangerous to investigate, then the police can refuse to do so, on the grounds that it was only an old van, and those travellers can be violent if provoked, and less said the better, eh son?
And so the police can sit on their fat arses eating doughnuts, and going after soft targets like speeding motorists, Christian hotel-keepers and people who have the foolish temerity to take photographs in public places. While the real criminals - the violent, the anti-social - get treated with kid gloves.
Ask anyone, ask anyone, whether they would prefer a country where dangerous and violent people were brought to justice, whatever the cost, or one where everyone kept to the speed limits.
Who do the police actually serve?
Thursday, 11 February 2010
Anarchy
Polaris has a post over on her blog, in which she finally comes out as a kind of uncertain anarchist.
In my period of sixth-form philosophy, I was an anarchist. Down with laws, down with Government, let the people be free, let the people work out their own ways of interacting and behaving. I still retain a bit of that, as I have never been much of a conformist, but I gradually moved away from an anarchist position as I felt it was naive. The world is much more complex than it allows for. The killer argument for me is that anarchy means, essentially, the rule of the strongest. Without laws, who protects the weak? Who ensures justice?
I'm a great believer in freedom, and I think we could cope with a lot more than our current masters allow us. But I don't think anarchy is the solution. Some compromises have to be made if we want our society to be better than the law of the jungle.
To be fair, Polaris admits she doesn't have many answers, and the piece is more of a rant than a considered judgement. But I have a strong feeling that, whatever the question was, anarchy is not the answer.
I am reminded of a passage from Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons. Sir Thomas More is arguing with William Roper about the use of the law:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
In my period of sixth-form philosophy, I was an anarchist. Down with laws, down with Government, let the people be free, let the people work out their own ways of interacting and behaving. I still retain a bit of that, as I have never been much of a conformist, but I gradually moved away from an anarchist position as I felt it was naive. The world is much more complex than it allows for. The killer argument for me is that anarchy means, essentially, the rule of the strongest. Without laws, who protects the weak? Who ensures justice?
I'm a great believer in freedom, and I think we could cope with a lot more than our current masters allow us. But I don't think anarchy is the solution. Some compromises have to be made if we want our society to be better than the law of the jungle.
To be fair, Polaris admits she doesn't have many answers, and the piece is more of a rant than a considered judgement. But I have a strong feeling that, whatever the question was, anarchy is not the answer.
I am reminded of a passage from Robert Bolt's A Man For All Seasons. Sir Thomas More is arguing with William Roper about the use of the law:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Saturday, 3 October 2009
Says it all, really
I have a permanent rant going on inside my head, but it rarely translates well to the written word. Some of us have a talent for that, so I am going to refer you straight to this. I particularly liked the concluding paragraph:
You can stick your CCTV, Police State, wheelie bin Stasi, DNA, WMD, "Social Cohesion", benefits for all, guilty until proved innocent, don't do that it's illegal now, can't say that, ID cards for all, where are you going, what have you been saying/doing/reading, can't photograph that, how very dare you, golliwog banning, we know where you live, we're watching you Soviet Utopia up your arses. Sideways.
I'm going to follow the advice of one of his commenters and lay down a bottle of something very special (a 10-year-old Glenmorangie sounds good) and then book holiday from work for the day following, when we learn of the date of the election.
Then I am going to sit with the TV right through the night, and when it finally becomes clear that the nightmare of the last 12 years is over, I am going to crack that bottle and get slowly, happily and tearfully hammered.
I can hardly wait.
You can stick your CCTV, Police State, wheelie bin Stasi, DNA, WMD, "Social Cohesion", benefits for all, guilty until proved innocent, don't do that it's illegal now, can't say that, ID cards for all, where are you going, what have you been saying/doing/reading, can't photograph that, how very dare you, golliwog banning, we know where you live, we're watching you Soviet Utopia up your arses. Sideways.
I'm going to follow the advice of one of his commenters and lay down a bottle of something very special (a 10-year-old Glenmorangie sounds good) and then book holiday from work for the day following, when we learn of the date of the election.
Then I am going to sit with the TV right through the night, and when it finally becomes clear that the nightmare of the last 12 years is over, I am going to crack that bottle and get slowly, happily and tearfully hammered.
I can hardly wait.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
A country of criminals
No, not Government Ministers - I mean the rest of us. I was struck by a comment on this article on The Times website:
This government has created so many new criminal offences and civil penalties that it is delightful to see the Attorney General become a victim of its legislation. As a lawyer practising criminal defence I've been saying for years that it will in due course become the accepted norm in society to have a conviction or two. By 'criminalising' so many people (and in particular children), the rule of law is severely weakened and morality, good character and integrity become less and less important.
In reckon that only about 20% of the pressure to obey the law comes from the consideration of penalties for breaking it. The other 80% comes from the desire not to be seen to be a lawbreaker. In other words, when I think about what is stopping me robbing a post office and retiring on the takings, it is only partly about the prison that might follow (let's face it, without a criminal record, I reckon the chances of being caught would be small). Far more is the idea of having a criminal conviction to my name, and the prospect of that old-fashioned idea that we don't hear much about today - shame. (I am talking about deterrents here, before you leap in - I wouldn't rob a post office because in the first case it is immoral and wrong. I am talking only about the deterrent sanctions that society has to regulate itself.)
I think 'Chris the Brief' has it about right. While laws were few and generally agreed to be 'right' (such as those against murder, rape, robbery or fraud), comparatively few people were convicted of breaking them, and the majority of the population behaved itself, keeping well on the side of the law-abiding. The level of compliance is very high. But when laws multiply exponentially, as they seem to have done in the last ten years, more and more people will commit some kind of offence, even unwittingly, and the value of being in the innocent majority will be lost. Add to that the fact that a lot of the laws passed recently do not necessarily have the support of the majority of the public (such as the 'hate speech' laws or the smoking and hunting bans), and you have a recipe for a gradual decline in the general unspoken support for the rule of law that we once had.
When I was 18, and had been driving a car for a whole six weeks, I was caught speeding by a policeman with a speed detector gun. I was fined and got an 'endorsement', as we used to call them, on my licence. I had to deal with explaining it to my Dad, whose car it was, and the insurers, and so on. It was difficult, and I felt that I had transgressed in quite a serious way. I got another endorsement four years later, this time on a motorbike (biking readers will choke with laughter when I reveal that my only speeding conviction on two wheels was on a Jawa). This had to be declared every time I took out motor insurance, and there was a faint sucking of teeth at the other end whenever I mentioned it.
And after that - nothing. I held a clean licence for the next 26 years, and it was a source of pride. I used to enjoy the tiny little buzz that came whenever I had to tick a box for 'convictions' on things like insurance applications, and could tick the box marked 'none'. I passed my car and bike tests for the IAM and felt that I was a sensible and responsible motorist - one of the law-abiding majority. There was a certain sense of security in this, and also an internal pressure to keep it that way.
Then one night I was caught by a Gatso. I was driving up the A15 in Lincolnshire, returning my daughters to their Mum after a weekend away. We had stopped for a Big Mac in Lincoln, and were a bit behind schedule. There is a stretch of the A15 going past Waddingham airfield which had been reduced to 50 mph because the Red Arrows were based there, and there were a number of accidents through people looking at the sky rather than where they were going. The Red Arrows were long gone, but the speed limit remained (no-one should be surprised at this). And I broke it that night, recorded by a camera that didn't understand that 60 was quite safe on an empty road in good weather, in the way that a proper policeman might have done.
I didn't contest it, as I was sure I was guilty, but I was mightily pissed off by it - not because of the fine, but because I no longer had a clean licence. That was important to me. And then, a revelation. A couple of years later, I was invited by Saga to apply for their car insurance (yes, I had reached that milestone). I confessed my sins, and the girl on the other end of the phone dismissed it. "Don't worry at all." she said. "Most of our customers have at least one conviction. We don't bother about three points - start worrying when you get to nine."
That got me thinking. If everyone has three points, what't the problem? It's no longer seen as unacceptable, or a mark of anti-social behaviour - it's just something that everyone has, like underarm hair. So when those points passed away and I almost immediately got three more (which I contested, as I was certain I was not guilty*), it wasn't so much of a problem. In fact, my attitude now is - as long as it doesn't cost me money in increased premiums, I really don't care. Three points, six points, we've all got them, welcome to the club. Now it takes a drink-driving conviction to get people tut-tutting - but if the blood alcohol levels are reduced even further, how long before people are saying "Oh, drink-driving, yes everyone's got one of those."
If you extrapolate this experience onto the wider world of social order and the rule of law, I think it's pretty disturbing. Keeping a clean sheet is a massive incentive to stay on the right side of the law. So is the disapproval of other people when you transgress. If we pass so many laws that no-one can obey them all, then no-one can keep a clean sheet, and no-one minds when other people get caught out. Add to this the way that a lot of new laws are contentious, partisan or simply vindictive, and you have a recipe for anarchy.
An urgent task for the next Government (asuming it is not Labour) is to have a review of all the laws and regulations that have been enacted since 1997, and a bonfire of all those that are stupid, petty, vindictive or unfair. Hopeful? I'm not.
* How's this for justice? I was fined £60 for an SP30, if I didn't argue and paid up quickly. I genuinely believed that the machine was faulty (the date was right, but the time of the offence was a time when I was several miles away in a meeting, and also I was certain my speedometer read 31 mph at the time I was seen) and I contested it. They still found me guilty, but increased the fine to £90 and added £150 costs on top. So that's £60 for speeding, and £180 for having the bare-faced cheek to challenge the system. Imagine that in a 'developing' country - a system where you are given a punishment without any due process, and told it will be quadrupled if you protest your innocence. We'd be invading them to 'liberate' their people and 'give them the benefits of democracy' before you could say knife.
This government has created so many new criminal offences and civil penalties that it is delightful to see the Attorney General become a victim of its legislation. As a lawyer practising criminal defence I've been saying for years that it will in due course become the accepted norm in society to have a conviction or two. By 'criminalising' so many people (and in particular children), the rule of law is severely weakened and morality, good character and integrity become less and less important.
In reckon that only about 20% of the pressure to obey the law comes from the consideration of penalties for breaking it. The other 80% comes from the desire not to be seen to be a lawbreaker. In other words, when I think about what is stopping me robbing a post office and retiring on the takings, it is only partly about the prison that might follow (let's face it, without a criminal record, I reckon the chances of being caught would be small). Far more is the idea of having a criminal conviction to my name, and the prospect of that old-fashioned idea that we don't hear much about today - shame. (I am talking about deterrents here, before you leap in - I wouldn't rob a post office because in the first case it is immoral and wrong. I am talking only about the deterrent sanctions that society has to regulate itself.)
I think 'Chris the Brief' has it about right. While laws were few and generally agreed to be 'right' (such as those against murder, rape, robbery or fraud), comparatively few people were convicted of breaking them, and the majority of the population behaved itself, keeping well on the side of the law-abiding. The level of compliance is very high. But when laws multiply exponentially, as they seem to have done in the last ten years, more and more people will commit some kind of offence, even unwittingly, and the value of being in the innocent majority will be lost. Add to that the fact that a lot of the laws passed recently do not necessarily have the support of the majority of the public (such as the 'hate speech' laws or the smoking and hunting bans), and you have a recipe for a gradual decline in the general unspoken support for the rule of law that we once had.
When I was 18, and had been driving a car for a whole six weeks, I was caught speeding by a policeman with a speed detector gun. I was fined and got an 'endorsement', as we used to call them, on my licence. I had to deal with explaining it to my Dad, whose car it was, and the insurers, and so on. It was difficult, and I felt that I had transgressed in quite a serious way. I got another endorsement four years later, this time on a motorbike (biking readers will choke with laughter when I reveal that my only speeding conviction on two wheels was on a Jawa). This had to be declared every time I took out motor insurance, and there was a faint sucking of teeth at the other end whenever I mentioned it.
And after that - nothing. I held a clean licence for the next 26 years, and it was a source of pride. I used to enjoy the tiny little buzz that came whenever I had to tick a box for 'convictions' on things like insurance applications, and could tick the box marked 'none'. I passed my car and bike tests for the IAM and felt that I was a sensible and responsible motorist - one of the law-abiding majority. There was a certain sense of security in this, and also an internal pressure to keep it that way.
Then one night I was caught by a Gatso. I was driving up the A15 in Lincolnshire, returning my daughters to their Mum after a weekend away. We had stopped for a Big Mac in Lincoln, and were a bit behind schedule. There is a stretch of the A15 going past Waddingham airfield which had been reduced to 50 mph because the Red Arrows were based there, and there were a number of accidents through people looking at the sky rather than where they were going. The Red Arrows were long gone, but the speed limit remained (no-one should be surprised at this). And I broke it that night, recorded by a camera that didn't understand that 60 was quite safe on an empty road in good weather, in the way that a proper policeman might have done.
I didn't contest it, as I was sure I was guilty, but I was mightily pissed off by it - not because of the fine, but because I no longer had a clean licence. That was important to me. And then, a revelation. A couple of years later, I was invited by Saga to apply for their car insurance (yes, I had reached that milestone). I confessed my sins, and the girl on the other end of the phone dismissed it. "Don't worry at all." she said. "Most of our customers have at least one conviction. We don't bother about three points - start worrying when you get to nine."
That got me thinking. If everyone has three points, what't the problem? It's no longer seen as unacceptable, or a mark of anti-social behaviour - it's just something that everyone has, like underarm hair. So when those points passed away and I almost immediately got three more (which I contested, as I was certain I was not guilty*), it wasn't so much of a problem. In fact, my attitude now is - as long as it doesn't cost me money in increased premiums, I really don't care. Three points, six points, we've all got them, welcome to the club. Now it takes a drink-driving conviction to get people tut-tutting - but if the blood alcohol levels are reduced even further, how long before people are saying "Oh, drink-driving, yes everyone's got one of those."
If you extrapolate this experience onto the wider world of social order and the rule of law, I think it's pretty disturbing. Keeping a clean sheet is a massive incentive to stay on the right side of the law. So is the disapproval of other people when you transgress. If we pass so many laws that no-one can obey them all, then no-one can keep a clean sheet, and no-one minds when other people get caught out. Add to this the way that a lot of new laws are contentious, partisan or simply vindictive, and you have a recipe for anarchy.
An urgent task for the next Government (asuming it is not Labour) is to have a review of all the laws and regulations that have been enacted since 1997, and a bonfire of all those that are stupid, petty, vindictive or unfair. Hopeful? I'm not.
* How's this for justice? I was fined £60 for an SP30, if I didn't argue and paid up quickly. I genuinely believed that the machine was faulty (the date was right, but the time of the offence was a time when I was several miles away in a meeting, and also I was certain my speedometer read 31 mph at the time I was seen) and I contested it. They still found me guilty, but increased the fine to £90 and added £150 costs on top. So that's £60 for speeding, and £180 for having the bare-faced cheek to challenge the system. Imagine that in a 'developing' country - a system where you are given a punishment without any due process, and told it will be quadrupled if you protest your innocence. We'd be invading them to 'liberate' their people and 'give them the benefits of democracy' before you could say knife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
