With rights come responsibilities:
Counter balancing the criminal justice
system

There has been much consternation recently about the case of a rapist in Scotland who received a punishment of 270 hour’s community service. He raped a 13 year old.

The reason (in chief) provided for the leniency by Judge Lord Lake was that he “didn’t intend to send him to prison” because he did not believe that this would “contribute to his rehabilitation.” This related to sentencing guidelines in respect of those under 25, and the development of the brain up to that age.

The victim, on hearing the sentence, felt she “couldn’t breathe”: “In my head I thought he was going to come for me, he was going to want to hurt me. I was back to being that 13-year old wee girl, scared of the unknown.” The victim stated that her life had been “ruined”.

I have to say that on this one I’m with the concerned members of the public, many of whom have been arguing that such a lenient sentence sends out completely the wrong message in respect of one of the most serious offences an individual can commit.

With reported rapes already running at a barely believable 1% conviction rate, what message is being sent to victims in respect of how seriously the judicial system is taking this most vile and traumatic offence that goes the distance and sees an offender found guilty?

Old enough?

By the time he was 25, Alexander the Great had united all of Greece and defeated the Emperor Darius of Persia at the battle of Gaugamela, shattering centuries of Persian rule. Octavian was ruling a third of the Roman Empire at 25 (and would soon rule it all). Napoleon was a Brigadier General (on his way to being Emperor of France).

You may argue that these were exceptional individuals. Well, I don’t regard myself as exceptional, and at 25 I had a good degree, had been a commissioned reserve officer, was in a plain clothes unit in the police, and had passed my pursuit driving course.

I also knew rape was wrong, and the consequences of carrying out such a despicable act were a long term in prison. I appreciated my responsibilities at 25, and a lot earlier, as too I have no doubt did the far more illustrious historical figures I have mentioned, as well as the vast majority of you reading this.

By 25 a UK national has all the rights the country can afford; they can gamble, buy alcohol, drive and vote. But criminal justice at present seems to have been captured by a cadre of individuals, hell bent on steamrolling through ‘rights’ without reflecting on the concept of responsibility.

If an individual cannot make a proper decision around whether raping someone is wrong, why should they be trusted to elect members of parliament, or be allowed to drive an object weighing over a tonne (like a small car) around their fellow citizens, with all the risks this carries?

Criminal (and wider) responsibility

There have been recent arguments for raising the age of criminal responsibility to 18. Combined with the hand wringing over an individual being under 25, were this to occur I believe we would experience a society in chaos, where those aged from 16 up would be able to engage in behaviours beyond the pale with little real consequence.

Tinker with any criminal justice system, from no matter what best of intention, and there will be unintended consequences.

In my professional opinion our current approach is taking us to a situation where those with a propensity to offend will have little to fear, and are therefore inclined to err toward offending rather than not. It is of course, not as simple as this – but in my opinion it is extremely likely.

There is also the cynic in me that believes discussions may have taken place on the financial cost of the criminal justice system (where, admittedly, most offences are indeed committed by those under 25) and a malevolent hand that also has the public purse strings is quite happy to see policy moving in the direction it is, as a cost-saving measure.

The research around brain development is very useful to those who wish to reduce the prison population as a means of reducing expenditure, with no thought for the safety of the public or the arguments around rights and accompanying responsibilities.

If we are to argue that someone is not wholly liable for their actions until after 25, there must be a debate as to the level of rights the young should consequently retain. It is completely contradictory to have no debate on this matter.

A potential solution

A lot of these issues arise from the confusion over what the sanctions within the criminal justice system are seeking to achieve; are they there to rehabilitate the offender, display the state’s displeasure, punish the individual, or protect the public?

We are currently in a mess over this, with the arguments over failure of rehabilitation drowning out all others where debate takes place.

For me there has to be a fundamental reappraisal of purpose. We need to be very clear on what our criminal justice sanctions are there to do (and not). So, for me where do we go from here?

We need to be grown up and accept that some can be rehabilitated and some cannot – and not wring our hands about their childhood making them so. The vast majority who experience childhood trauma do not offend, a factor the proponents of adverse childhood experiences dogma chose not to engage with, from my reading of relevant research.

The age of the offender may have a bearing, it may not. There should be no ‘carte blanche’ ticket to rehabilitation based on someone’s age. When an adult (as viewed by society) it is their offending behaviour is what is important, not their date of birth.

For those who can be rehabilitated, we need to invest an appropriate amount of blood, sweat and tears into a service that can achieve this. We need to be clear that the purpose of this service is to rehabilitate, not punish. It needs to be appropriately designed, staffed and funded.

Then there are those who cannot be rehabilitated (those who many dominating current debates do not want to talk about). These individuals need to be appropriately identified within our criminal justice system and incarcerated as appropriate to their offending. This needs to take place to protect the public.

In respect of those to be rehabilitated there needs to be clear ‘success’ criteria. Where a reassessment of failure indicates rehabilitation is not going to be possible, this needs to be called out and the individual re-schemed.

Punishment and societies disdain comes from the offender being forced to engage with either system. We need a system that works, and a future system that hasn’t been designed on a purely ‘progressive’ framework but acknowledges the needs of victims and the protection of society as a whole. Individuals are important, but so is everyone else.

A confused system

Our current criminal justice system is confused, and does not see the ‘rights’ being championed within it as contradictory to the ‘responsibilities’ citizens have within society.

Current debate is dominated by a ‘progressive’ and largely unchallenged agenda that needs to be counter balanced by the needs of the public to go about their lives free from fear of becoming a victim of crime, and who are confident the systems designed to protect them are indeed doing so.