Friday, 7 September 2012

Burglars are brave?

The remarks recently by a senior judge, that "burglary requires considerable bravery" as he let a burglar off in his court, shows just how out of touch the judiciary has become in the UK. Calling a common thief "brave" is an insult to the armed services, fire fighters, police and people like the volunteers who man the RNLI's lifeboats. A burglar is a self-serving thief. They are not motivated by feelings of self-sacrifice, service or duty. Their motivation is purely their own profit. Bravery doesn't enter into it.

Since this is now before the Judicial Complaints commissioners, one can hope that they will remove this idiot from office. Sadly, I rather think they will do their usual back-flips, headstands and contortions to keep him in office and present his statement as having been "misrepresented" or "taken out of context."

The truth is that as long as this sort of mindset is allowed to preside over our courts "justice" will not be served. It will not be seen to be done, nor will the punishment fit the crimes. To those who say "justice" must be about "reforming" or "helping" the criminal I say this. You have never had your hard earned property stolen by some lazy scumbag. You have never had your home violated and your hardearned possessions stolen. You have never been threatened and beaten in your home when you disturbed some common thief helping himself to your possessions.

No, you live in high value homes, in well protected properties remote from the realities of the criminals you support and defend.

This judge and any others like him should be removed immediately from his post and the "guidelines" issued by the Department of Justice should be torn up. Burglars should be jailed. Thieves should be jailed. The defence that someone was "desperate" for his next drug fix and this drove him to commit the crime should be rammed down the lawyers throat - and the lawyer arguing it put in jail alongside his junkie client.

Justice is not served by these morons. Justice is NOT being done by such men and women. It is time it was changed.


  1. Slim Jim quotes:

    'Justice is not served by these morons. Justice is NOT being done by such men and women. It is time it was changed.'

    Yes, but how? It is these type of men and women who actually make the laws, the politicians, many of whom were in the legal profession. Look at how the last government bent over backwards to enrich their own profession! Look at the type of men and women they appointed to enforce their laws! It wasn't just Sir Humphrey who should be behind bars (or in front of a firing squad!), the judiciary have been getting away with a hell of a lot of activism, seemingly without much challenge. Yes, this particular muppet (Lord Kermit of Wankville) said a very stupid and worrying thing, but what about the ridiculous decisions that have been taken under the Human Remains Act? They bend over backwards to allow undesirable aliens to remain in this country, yet hardly a peep from the MSM, other than a few headlines. Yes, we are indeed living in a post-democratic age, and if things don't improve, then we will have to resort to taking appropriate action. We've got the lamp posts, we've got the piano wire...

  2. I have two points to make here; one agrees with the Monk's general ethos, the other relates to the sentence that was actually imposed upon the miscreant, irrespective of the Judges words.

    The first is that until the Theft Act of 1968, the common law of England had two separate offences for household theft; Housebreaking and Burglary. In 1968 the two were combined, having the effect of diluting the common law offence of burglary.

    By way of background, I will mention the problems I had with fire officers under Scot's Law prior to 1995, with what, in England, would be prosecuted as arson. The common-law offence was “fire-raising”, but it fell into several forms, malicious, wilful, fraudulent and careless or reckless. Wilful fire raising, however had until recent years attracted a maximum penalty of capital punishment as it was specifically related to setting fire to a house during the hours of darkness: the law treated this in effect as attempted murder as the law assumed that law-abiding citizens would be in their beds at the time.

    Burglary in Common Law, was originally the same, treated as house-breaking during the hours of darkness, the law assumed that the burglar was implicitly aiming to cause bodily harm to the occupants without the need of evidence to prove the point. My belief is that that distinction should return. Housebreaking was theft, burglary was robbery, by definition, violence was implicit when the offence was carried out in darkness.

    It is facile to believe in our contemporary society that no self-respecting law-abiding person is out and about during the dark hours, however the law in these areas was once clear, if it is dark and you break into (or set fire to) a person's dwelling, the offence is not simple theft and should be punished as an offence against the person as well as against the property.

    Secondly, forgetting the Judges words, which I agree were either taken totally out of context or were evidence of gross incompetence, the sentence passed upon the miscreant was appropriate, he was not “let off” as the Monk suggests. The sentence was one of 12 months suspended sentence, a two-year supervision order with drug rehabilitation, 200 hours of community service and a one-year driving ban. So, examining this, he is to get clean, if he doesn't, it's a year inside; 200 hours of community service, done properly along with the rehabilitation may, just may, change the person. The judge is giving the person an opportunity to avoid the drugs causing more repeat offences. If he fails, he is inside, he will fuel his habit there, come out and offend again, that cycle is almost guaranteed.

    Perhaps what we need to be looking at here is why it is almost imperative to keep stupid but savable drug addicts out of prison because of the free availability of heroin on the inside. My personal belief is that the prisons contain so many people who are mentally ill or otherwise mentally challenged that it is not in the interests of the authorities to stop the heroin trade in Her Majesty's nicks! If it was cocaine, or especially crystal meth, they would crack down because they would lose prison officers in daily violent attacks; the heroin addict, on the other hand is likely to be much easier to handle and less likely to cause major problems.

    There is a lot wrong with our society, a lot wrong with our legal framework, but Old testament justice and a punishment ethos is not appropriate for the 21st century. That doesn't mean I wouldn't rather attend a public hanging or flogging than an association football match, I reckon you could fill stadia quite profitably for such events, however, is it appropriate? For my yardstick here I have used some of the arguments discussed in M. Foucault's book Discipline and Punish, the birth of the prison. First published as Surveiller et punir; Naissance de la prison in 1975. (My copy is Penguin 1977.)