Category: Punishments and Prisons

The issue of payment for prisoners

13th December 2022

Again, here is the introduction to a thing about prisons I wrote at the Financial Times back in 2013:

Nine years later this unthinking or cruel general attitude toward prisons and prisoners remains as widely held as ever.

I blogged about the prisons issue recently, but today I saw a fascinating and informative post which should have the widest possible circulation.

The post is on the issue of payment for prisoners, and it is by Virginia Mantouvalou at the UK labour law blog.

Please click here and read it.

*

The punishment of imprisonment, of course, should be imprisonment: that is, the deprivation of liberty.

But for many, it would seem that the imprisonment – the deprivation of liberty – is only the start.

Once the prisoner is inside the prison, the common view appears to be that the prisoner should be treated as badly as possible and that they must endure as brutal conditions as the State can get away with.

Any deviation from this extreme position is caricatured as being akin to prison being a “holiday camp”.

But, if the punishment is the imprisonment itself, there is – for example – no good or logical reason why prisoners should not be paid adequately for the labour they provide – especially for commercial enterprises utilising the available prison labour.

(Performing labour for inadequate or no payment, of course, has its own word.)

At the end of the linked post, Mantouvalou sets out what should happen:

“The leader of the UK prison officers’ union, Mark Fairhurst, said that prisoners should be paid the minimum wage for their workshop jobs.

“The Howard League for Penal Reform has made concrete recommendations on how to have ‘real work’ in prisons: they said that it is desirable for prisoners to work, proposed that it is acceptable for private employers to be involved, and emphasised that prisoners should receive real wages for their work, make national insurance contributions, contributions to a victims’ fund, and pay tax.

“The Guide to the European Prison Rules says that work must be useful, provide fair pay and include vocational training, that people should have some choice over the type of work, and that their working conditions (such as maximum hours and health and safety) should not be below those outside of prison.  It also says that pre-trial, people can be permitted but not required to work, while after sentence, they may be required to work subject to fitness.

“These and other related recommendations need to be taken up and explored seriously.

“At a time of labour shortages and while there is a push to employ more working prisoners to cover these, keeping them trapped in structures of exploitation while in prison and setting them up to fail post-release is unjust.”

There can be no sensible objection to any of this.

But it will not happen – at least not yet.

And this is because too many people prefer to either be unthinking or cruel when it comes to anything to do with prisons and prisoners.

***

These posts are also crossposted on my new “law and lore” substack – please subscribe there if you can.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

Prisons will not be reformed until and unless we rethink our views on punishment and retribution

2nd December 2022

Here is the introduction to a thing about prisons I wrote at the Financial Times in 2013:

We are all, of course, familiar with the notion of prisons – and many of us will have Very Strong Opinions about the lengths of custodial sentences:

“Six years! Eight years! Fifteen years! More, more!”

“Higher, higher, higher!”

*

But.

For the reasons set out in that Financial Times piece, prisons are a strange as well as counter-productive idea for dealing with most crimes.

Prisons, generally speaking, are an expensive way of making bad people worse.

But the notion of incarceration is so deeply embedded in our collective consciousness it takes real effort to dislodge it.

It was not always like this.

In some earlier times, prisons were where you kept those charged with a crime until their cases could be heard and any sentences – capital, corporal, transportation – could be imposed.

Imprisonment itself was thereby a means to an end, rather than the punishment for criminal activity.

(The position for civil matters was different, with the debtors’ prisons, asylums and workhouses, all keeping certain undesirables out of the way.)

Around 1800 imprisonment became the normal punishment itself for crime – though for many onlookers the loss of liberty was not enough: prisons also had to be as miserable if not brutal as possible.

*

And little, if any, thought is ever given to the (innocent) families and dependents of those incarcerated.

If they are thought about at all, it is with a shrug and a vague idea that it is the criminals who are to be blamed and/or that their (innocent) families and dependents are tainted by association.

And so that the innocent suffer becomes an output of the criminal justice system, as well as the protection of the innocent being the system’s supposed purpose.

The state has to destroy innocent lives, so as to protect them.

*

There are at least two problems for any reform of prisons.

The first is that imprisonment is central to how society thinks about the punishment of crime.

A convicted person receiving a range of sanctions will still be described “as walking free from court” by outraged newspapers to their outraged readers.

The second is a consensus of what should replace imprisonment, especially given the popular view that retribution is the central purpose of punishment.

Of course, those who pose a danger to others or commit murders and other serious offences against the person should be locked away – and, unlike many liberals, I even support whole-life tariffs in exceptional circumstances.

But until and unless we rethink our views about punishment and retribution, the current expensive and damaging system will continue, for want of any alternative.

I was once asked what current day practice would be looked on in the future as akin to how we now see those who facilitated slavery.

My answer, more with hope than expectation, was: incarceration being considered the norm for punishments, with any alternative having to be justified.

Anyway, this post was triggered by reading this piece in the Guardian.

Let me know below what you think – about the points I set out above and the Guardian article, and what you think about prisons and imprisonment as punishment generally.

***

Please support this blog, if you can.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

What the Ministry of Justice should do with Reading Gaol

30th November 2022

Bill Hicks did this great routine about Jesus of Nazareth coming back to see crosses everywhere:

“Lots of Christians wear crosses around their necks. You think when Jesus comes back he’s gonna want to see a fucking cross, man?

“”Ow.” Might be why he hasn’t shown up yet.

“”Man, they’re still wearing crosses. Fuck it, I’m not goin’ back, Dad. No, they totally missed the point. When they start wearing fishes, I might show up again, but… let me bury fossils with you, Dad. Fuck ’em, let’s fuck with ’em! Hand me that brontosaurus head, Dad.””

Hicks had a point.

The crucifix was a torture device, which was used to ensure the victim had an agonising death.

It has taken about two thousand years of cultural familiarisation for it to be a comforting symbol, which some even place outside schools and hospitals.

“You know, kinda like going up to Jackie Onassis with a rifle pendant on, you know. “Thinkin’ of John, Jackie. We love him. Just tryin’ to keep that memory alive, baby.””

*

Perhaps the ghost of Oscar Wilde would have the similar reaction to the calls for the closed Reading Gaol to be now turned into an arts centre:

*

It was, after all, where Wilde spent his time incarcerated, serving a sentence of two years’ hard labour, for gross indecency – the crime being consensual homosexual intercourse.

The campaign has the support of the local member of parliament:

The Ministry of Justice, on the other hand, seems to have done nothing since 2014 with this prime real estate in that tent of urbanisation which geographers call the largest town in England.

BBC News tells us that the Ministry of Justice “has previously rejected the plan and said it wanted to “seek [the] best value for taxpayers”.”

*

One suspects Wilde would have been generous in his support with this campaign to turn his gaol into an arts venue.

Indeed, that we even associate the prison with Wilde is down to his own writing.

He, of course, immortalised the prison in the title of one of his greatest poems, about the execution and burial of an inmate when he was there:

“In Reading gaol by Reading town
There is a pit of shame,
And in it lies a wretched man
Eaten by teeth of flame,
In a burning winding-sheet he lies,
And his grave has got no name.”
*
And in his autobiographical De Profundis, Wilde wrote:

“People point to Reading Gaol and say, ‘That is where the artistic life leads a man.’  Well, it might lead to worse places.”

He then mentions some of those worse places:

“A man whose desire is to be something separate from himself, to be a member of Parliament, or a successful grocer, or a prominent solicitor, or a judge, or something equally tedious, invariably succeeds in being what he wants to be.  That is his punishment.”

*

One gets the impression that Wilde would actually quite approve of Reading Gaol being turned into an arts centre, especially with the grudging consent of the government.

(It would be a fitting counterpart to the bank note memorial for that other great figure prosecuted under and broken by the very same vile “gross indecency” offence, Alan Turing.)

Wilde would probably not even rub it in for those working at the Ministry of Justice, for he would regard their mundane civil service jobs as punishment enough.

*

Reading Gaol should become a standing reminder of the wickedness of which our criminal law can be capable – against Wilde, Turing, and so many others.

And this would be as an arts venue, and not as a block of flats.

This would also certainly be “better value for taxpayers” than the prison standing idle for another eight years, located next to the touristy plush grounds of the ruined abbey in Reading.

The Ministry of Justice may well know the price that land could command for development, but they do not know that property’s value.

*

“Nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

***

Please support this blog, if you can.

Posts like this take time and opportunity cost, and so for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box (above), or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The Prime Minister says he “takes full responsibility” – but what does this mean in constitutional terms, if anything?

25th May 2022

Today we take in the now-published Sue Gray report.

The quick-takes have already been given and a parliamentary statement has come and gone, as the rest of us who have an interest digest the details of the report.

This post is not about the report in detail, but about the current Prime Minister’s response.

It is a response that Boris Johnson often gives at times of trouble.

It is the response of saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.

What could this phrase mean?

Note the ‘responsibility’ he purports to take is ‘full’ – and so, presumably, this is intended to mean something (or to convey that it means something) distinct from taking mere responsibility.

Oh no – this is ‘full’ responsibility.

Rhetorically, it is an impressive statement – to which some may even nod-along.

But it is hard, if not impossible, to see what it means.

For example: what actually is different as a consequence of Johnson saying he ‘takes full responsibility’?

What things change that otherwise would not change, but for the Prime Minister saying that he ‘takes full responsibility’.

What is different from the Prime Minister saying instead “I am not taking full responsibility” or “I am not taking any responsibility whatsoever?”.

There is not any real difference; nothing changes.

If the Prime Minister instead said a sequence of nonsense words, it would have the same constitutional import.

This is because, in constitutional terms, when the Prime Minister says he is taking ‘full responsibility’, he is saying nothing meaningful.

In constitutional terms, the position is exactly the same after the moment Johnson says it, as when he does not say it.

It is instead a rhetorical device – a political tactic to get him through an awkward moment, cynically giving the impression to the listener that something grave is being conceded or admitted, when nothing is being accepted at all.

For, in constitutional terms, a Prime Minister taking ‘ full responsibility’ for a serious wrong is to perform an action, rather than to say a thing.

The action the Prime Minister would perform is to resign.

And if there is not a resignation after a serious wrong then ‘ full responsibility’ has not been taken.

Indeed, by using it as a deft rhetorical trick, Johnson evades taking full responsibility.

So next time you hear the current Prime Minister assure you and others that he ‘takes full responsibility’, substitute for that phase a sequence of random words and sounds, for it will have the same constitutional meaning.

That is to say: no constitutional meaning at all.

**

Please support this independent law and policy blog so that it can continue – do not assume it can continue without your help.

For more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The suggestion that the Prime Minister give evidence to the privileges committee under oath and pain of perjury

2nd May 2022

Did you know there is a Parliamentary Witness Oaths Act?

This 1871 statute – which is still in force – provides among other things that any committee of the House of Commons may administer an oath to the witnesses examined before such committee.

And, while an examination of witness by a parliamentary committee is not a judicial proceeding, it would still be perjury for a person to lie such an oath (or affirmation) – with the penalty being up to seven years in prison.

This information comes from a fascinating and informative article at the New Statesman by Alexander Horne, a former parliamentary legal adviser.

In that article Horne contends that such an oath could be administered to the Prime Minister for any evidence he gives to the privileges committee.

If so. this would mean that the Prime Minister would be (to use the glorious legal phrase) ‘under pain of perjury’ to tell the truth to the committee investigating whether he deliberately misled parliament and/or failed to correct the record at the first available opportunity.

(The latter point is where this blog has previously set out that the Prime Minister is vulnerable, for it may be hard for him to maintain that once he had the Sue Gray report and/or any briefing for the Metropolitan police investigation that he still did not realise that he had misled parliament.)

On the face of it, administering such an oath has its attractions.

No sensible person doubts that the current prime minister lies fluently and repeatedly, and so placing him ‘under pain of perjury’ would have the advantage of concentrating his mind wonderfully.

Such an approach would also have the broader advantage of reminding the Prime Minister and others that evidence to parliamentary committees should be taken seriously – especially as the sanction of ‘contempt of parliament’ is, well, held in contempt.

Horne mentions where such oaths have been used:

“Committees rarely administer the oath to witnesses, although it has happened in recent years. The Home Affairs Committee chose to take evidence under oath in respect of its inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. The Public Accounts Committee also controversially administered the oath to the general counsel and solicitor to the Inland Revenue in 2011.”

*

But.

It may be one thing for witnesses who are not members of either house of parliament to give evidence to a parliamentary committee ‘under pain of perjury’ – but for a parliamentarian and minister to also do so is constitutionally problematic.

That what parliamentarians say in parliament is absolutely protected at law is set out (some would say ‘enshrined’) in the Bill of Rights.

And there is the principle that the responsibility of a minister to answer questions in parliament is politically enforceable (or not enforceable), and not a matter for any form of litigation.

Imagine if the Prime Minister (or other minister or parliamentarian) is caught out in a lie before a parliamentary committee, what would then happen?

(And the 1871 legislation does not expressly provide that parliamentarians are exempt.)

Would an outside court have to adjudicate the conduct of a parliamentarian in respect of parliamentary proceedings?

It is difficult to see how such a prosecution could be easily brought – and it could result in another (for constitutional commentators, splendid) constitutional mess.

And regardless of the legal(istic) issues in this particular situation, there is a sensible wariness of converting political issues into court matters.

*

That said, however, it is unfortunate that there is so little that can be done to get the prime minister to give truthful answers in parliament.

This is certainly a constitutional problem that needs a practical solution.

The suggestion of getting a Prime Minister to give evidence to the privileges committee investigating him ‘under pain of perjury’ has the appearance of being such a solution to that problem.

The fear would be that in seeking go solve one constitutional problem, another is caused.

And so the problem remains: what can you do – constitutionally and practically –  with a dishonest Prime Minister?

*

POSTSCRIPT

Horne has provided a link to a useful post where he deals with the issues in more detail:

**

Please support this blog, so that it can carry on.

These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day do take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to pre-moderate.

So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

You can also become an email subscriber.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.

The Rule of Law and the Colston Four – and why a jury acquittal shows a legal system working and not being undermined

 

The Colston Four defendants have been acquitted by a jury.

Some are contending, like this former cabinet minister, that this acquittal ‘undermines the rule of law’.

That contention is incorrect.

An acquittal is as much an aspect of the rule of law as a conviction.

Criminal courts can acquit as well as convict – both can be the outcomes of the application of due process in a particular case.

The Colston Four were acquitted by a jury – and the defendants did not deny the essential facts.

It can be open to a jury to do this – and this informative Guardian article sets out many other examples.

A jury returning a verdict that they are entitled to return is an example of the law in action, and not of a legal process undermined.

This is not to say that juries are perfect – indeed, many of the greatest miscarriages of justice have come from jury verdicts.

Juries do not always get things right.

But the constitutional importance of juries is not so much for the decisions they make, but for the decisions they take away from others.

The State may arrest, charge and prosecute a person – but they cannot convict and punish a defendant pleading ‘not guilty’ to a serious offence without a jury trial.

The implication of the former cabinet minister’s view quoted above is that it should not be open to a jury to acquit a person prosecuted for a serious offence – but only to convict and punish.

But that is not the ‘rule of law’ – it is something darker and nastier instead.

Others are fretting that the verdict creates a ‘precedent’.

It, of course, does not create any legal precedent – no jury can bind another jury, and each jury should look at the case before them on its own evidence.

Nor does it create any practical precedent – or, at least, not one which has any more force than the many previous examples set out in the Guardian article.

The real upset is that a court heard the evidence and acquitted the defendants.

This is what juries sometimes do – and they can do this because they are outwith the control of the prosecuting State.

One half-expects that this weekend’s press will see ‘government sources’ urging ‘a crackdown’ on ‘perverse’ acquittals – with a proposal for ministers to have a ‘fast track’ on imposing convictions.

And this is not to put an idea into the heads of government ministers – the idea is no doubt already there.

One irony – if that is the correct word – is that this very government sought to use primary legislation to enable ministers to break the law.

That proposal – over which the Advocate General and the Treasury Solicitor resigned (and the recently knighted former Lord Chancellor did not) – did more to undermine the rule of law than any verdict of a Bristol jury.

And the current hyper-partisanship of modern politics means that if, say, a group of fox hunters were acquitted by some shire county jury, the same people who are jeering the Bristol jury would be cheering the shire county jury instead.

But juries are juries – they make mistakes, but they are independent of State prosecutors.

And the noise of government supporters unhappy with a jury decision is the sweet sound of a working constitution.

*****

Thank you for reading – and now please help this daily law and policy blog survive.

It needs your help to continue for another year – for the benefit of you and other readers – there is no paid subscription model.

Each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – both for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.

The Supreme Court judgment in Majera – court orders have to be obeyed, even by the Home Secretary

21st October 2021

Yesterday, while lawyers and commentators were discussing the recent speech by the Attorney General, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom handed down a judgment that may be more significant than anything the Attorney General said and what others will say about that speech.

The case is that of Majera – and it is about immigration and deportation, but it is about a lot more than that.

Majera was born in Rwanda and came to the United Kingdom as a child, but in 2006 he was convicted of serious offences, and when in prison he was issued with a deportation order.

He was then released on licence in 2015, but was again detained, and so he applied to the relevant tribunal for bail, which was granted in a court order.

So far, so complicated – though not an unusual set of facts in the ever-expanding caselaw about deporting foreign-born convicts.

But Majera then did something that prompted even more litigation and led ultimately to yesterday’s significant Supreme Court judgment.

Majera volunteered to work in a charity shop.

*

You would think that it would be a good thing for a convict facing deportation to contribute to society by doing unpaid work for the public good.

But: no.

This was intolerable for the Home Office.

The problem, however, was that the tribunal order granting bail did not preclude Majera from working on a voluntary basis, but from paid employment or from any business or profession.

(The other bail conditions were strict: Majera could only do voluntary work as approved by his supervising officer – so not any voluntary work but only that which a state agent endorsed, and he was subject to a curfew.)

The Home Office, disregarding the judge’s order, formally notified Majera that he could not do voluntary work – and when objections were made, the Home Office came up with various excuses which they abandoned on legal challenge.

And so Majera challenged the Home Office decisions, as he was entitled to do so.

The Home Office, in response, came up with the argument that the judge’s order on bail was invalid, and thereby void, as it contradicted another statutory provision.

Accordingly, the Home Office contended, it was perfectly open to the Home Office to disregard the judge’s order and impose conditions of their own.

*

Majera won his challenge.

But.

The Home Office appealed.

It would seem the prospect of Majera working in a charity shop was so unacceptable that public funds were justified in taking this to the Court of Appeal, and so the Home Office did, instructing a QC to do so.

*

The Court of Appeal decided in favour of the Home Office.

Their reasoning was that if a decision is void then, well, it is void.

If the judge did not actually have the power to make the order that was made, then the order disappeared in a puff of legal magic, and it should be treated as if it never happened.

The order would have no effect, by the automatic operation of a lack of law.

Here the appeal judges relied on cases where subordinate legislation and administrative decisions were held to have no legal effect because they were ‘ultra vires’.

Majera appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal.

*

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision led by Lord Reed the president of the court, granted Majera’s appeal.

The decision is a wide-ranging survey of the law of ‘ultra vires’ and a detailed critique of vague notions such as ‘void’ and ‘null’ when applied to things that otherwise would have legal effect.

It is a judgment that will repay careful reading.

In essence: the supreme court held that orders of the court were special, and so should not have been lumped together with ‘ultra vires’ subordinate legislation and administrative decisions by the Court of Appeal.

A court order must be obeyed until and unless it is set aside by the court (or possibly overtaken by legislation).

It was not open to the home secretary – or anyone else – to pick and choose which orders were valid or invalid.

*

This is a judgment that is significant on its own terms – but (on first glance) it also may be one with wider implications.

For example: one of the government’s current legislative proposals for judicial review is about giving courts the power to make ‘suspended’ quashing orders that would limit the legal effects of a finding of ‘ultra vires’.

Another government proposal is about limiting the scope of judicial review in the tribunal system – and this case shows that it is not only the individuals but the state itself that can take bad public law points in claims and defences.

This may not be a judgment that was intended to contribute to the discussion about judicial activism and the reform of judicial review, but it may be an important contribution nonetheless.

*

But it is certainly an important case about the separation of powers.

For just as in a recent judgment in favour of the home secretary, Lord Reed said that is certain cases, the courts should accord ‘respect’ to the home secretary, this case in turn is about the respect the executive – and everyone else – should accord to the orders of the court.

Even the home secretary.

For just as the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General are warning judges to keep off the executive’s lawn, this is the Supreme Court, in effect, telling the government to keep off the lawn of the courts.

****

Please support this blog so that it can continue.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome

Some refreshing comments against the glamourisation of serial killers and the woo-woo of criminal profiling

15th September 2021

One of the ugliest aspects of modern culture is the glamourisation – and monetisation – of serial killers.

*

In From Hell by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell, about the Whitechapel murders, an opportunistic salesman sets up stall after the body of Catherine Eddowes is found in Mitre Square:

We then go to the reaction of the investigator Detective Abberline:

And then, in Moore’s footnotes to the story:

Quite.

*

The best thing, of course, to read on those killings is Hallie Rubenhold’s The Five.

Here Rubenhold pulls together the extant information about the lives of each of the victims for a sequence of compelling social histories.

Rubenhold explains how the victim’s social and economic predicaments – especially the then-common outdoor sleeping of the Victorian poor – made them easy to kill.

And also how social prejudices about (supposed) prostitution meant the murders were not taken seriously.

*

In The Collectors episode of The Sandman, Neil Gaiman and Mike Dringenberg depict a convention of serial killers, with all their braggy self-importance.

But at the end of the convention these proud killers are stripped of their glamours:

And they disperse as pathetic losers.

*

It is not just comics.

The serial killer as a figure whose ‘mind’ we are supposed to ‘enter’ is a staple of modern fiction – and modern non-fiction.

Take the pseudo-science of ‘profiling’.

It certainly makes great film and television:

But profiling is mainly woo-woo – at least to the extent to which it is based on individual subjective assessments rather than broad statistical analysis.

(See here and here – but also here.)

And the glamourisation – and monetisation – of serial killers continues.

*

So it was against this background when I stumbled on the following YouTube video.

I was expecting more of the same Cracker and Mindhunter tish-tosh.

How wrong I was.

Instead of the usual pseudo-science, Professor David Wilson takes us on a refreshingly sensible and unimpressed guided tour of well-known and less well-known depictions of serial killers.

This is Wilson on Lecter:

“I have encountered serial killers who have tried to scare me, but I wouldn’t be scared by Anthony Hopkins.

“I’d have laughed, frankly, if you’d told me about fava beans and a nice Chianti.”

The video is worth watching from beginning to end – and the end is brilliant (here is the video at 27:54):

Wilson refers to the “trope that we see in a lot of Hollywood movies, that people like me would try and enter the mind of a serial killer.”

He then concludes the video:

“I am not interested in what motivates a serial killer.

“I am much more interested in who it is the serial killer is able to kill.

“If we concentrated our attention on the groups that serial killers constantly target, we would do a lot more to reduce the incidence of serial murder in our cultures, as opposed to any number of offender profilers who claim that they can ‘enter the mind of a serial killer’.

“If you really want to do something to reduce the incidence of serial murder in our culture, let’s challenge homophobia, let’s have a grownup debate about how we police those young men and young women who sell sexual services, and above all, let’s try and work out why the elderly are so vulnerable in our culture because they don’t have a voice and have no power.”

Quite.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of any amount as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters – each post is usually published at about 9.30am UK time – though some special posts are published later.

*****

You can also subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Positive vs Normative Statements – You may not want to blame the lawyers but it remains a fact that lawyers facilitate(d) slavery, torture, imperialism, police brutality, and so on

8th August 2021

Today’s post is, in effect, a footnote to yesterday’s post on laws and systems – what connects slavery, torture, imperialism, police brutality and so on.

The reason for this post is that some commenters responded to yesterday’s post as if my primary purpose were to impose blame on lawyers for their role in the facilitation of slavery, torture, imperialism, police brutality and so on.

Lawyers were only doing their job, the responses went, and so it was rather unfair of me to blame them.

All they were doing was advising on the law, and that is what is lawyers do.

I was being unfair, the response averred.

*

Such a protest is, in my view, to confuse positive and normative statements.

The existences of slavery, torture, imperialism, police brutality, and so on, in any organised society does – as a matter of positive fact – require the involvement of those who make and deal with laws.

This is simply because such things can only exist in an organised society if they are permitted – or at least recognised – by law.

And in modern societies, there is often a distinct profession for those who practise in laws: lawyers.

*

Whether any lawyers – individually or collectively – should be regarded as culpable for recognising or permitting activities is a separate and distinct argument to the one advanced in yesterday’s post

There may, for example, be a ‘cab rank’ rule which obliged lawyers to make submissions to court that they personally did not agree with.

Or the world-view of the time and place may have meant that, say, slavery, torture, or imperialism were not morally contested – and so it may be that it would not be historically fair to regard the lawyers enabling such activities as being especially culpable.

But even taking such normative points at their highest, there remains the positive and undeniable fact.

That is the positive fact that slavery, torture, imperialism, police brutality, and so on, can only exist in any modern society because they are facilitated by those who deal with and practice in law.

And this remains true – even if we can excuse (or find excuses for) individual lawyers who participate(d) in recognising or permitting such activities.

***

You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Laws and systems – what connects slavery, torture, imperialism, police brutality and so on

7th August 2021

This is a depressing post about law and policy, but it is one which is triggered by work I am doing on a particular project.

One of the things that I am researching and writing is about how lawyers made possible slavery and the slave trade – a topic that I wrote about at Prospect magazine, as well as in previous posts on this blog and on Twitter (see here and here).

*

Of course: human beings are capable of being cruel to other human beings without laws or lawyers.

An individual person can coerce another person, can torture another person, can expropriate the possessions of another person – and so on – without any legal system or advisers in place.

That, unfortunately, appears to be the nature of our species – at least given the archaeological and historical record.

*

For enslavement, torture, expropriation – and so on – to exist in any organised society (that is, say, a human grouping larger than Dunbar’s Number) requires the help of norms and rules.

Either such practices will not be prohibited or such practices will be positively facilitated.

In other words: slavery, torture and imperialism in any society depend on systems of rules being in place that enable them.

And in such modern societies, where the practice of law is usually a distinct profession, this in turn means that such practices are facilitated by lawyers.

Lawyers draft the relevant legal instruments, and lawyers then advise those who seek to rely on legal rights as set out in those instruments and otherwise.

And many of these lawyers did so (and some still do, for example, with the torture memoranda in the United States) with absolute moral neutrality – they are not here to gainsay the law, but to advise on what one can get away with under the law.

A similar legal infrastructure exists still in respect of defending the police and other state actors in respect of coercion and lethal force against civilians.

None of this – from slavery to systemic police brutality – none of this would be possible, but for laws and those who make those laws work.

Of course: the saving grace is that there are laws which (supposedly) prohibit each of these things, and there are lawyers who will challenge such laws and defend those affected.

And such liberal and progressive laws and lawyers should be celebrated.

But.

It has to be laws and lawyers which take on slavery, torture, imperialism, police brutality – and so on.

And this is because such things only exist in any organised society because of laws – and often lawyers – in the first place.

All that liberal and progressive  laws and lawyers are taking away are what other laws and lawyers provided in the first place.

**

Thank you for reading.

Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without your support.

If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.