Sunday, 28 November 2010
It’s not fair
We are all born with elementary concepts of justice. Even the youngest child when she or he feels that something is not right will announce that “it’s not fair.” Sadly there is so much of life that is simply unfair; even justice can be unfair, justice where there is no justice.
In 1995 Philip Lawrence, a headmaster, was stabbed to death outside his school in West London when he went to aid a boy being attacked by a gang. One Leareo Chindamo, born in Italy of an Italian father and Filipina mother, was later charged and convicted with the murder. A juvenile at the time, he was jailed indefinitely, with a recommendation from the judge that he serve at least twelve years. In July of this year he was released by the parole board. At the time he made some pious statement to the effect that he would spend the rest of his life atoning for his crime and intended to do so “by living quietly and decently.”
Well, we now know what this creature means by living quietly and decently. A few days ago he was arrested on suspicion of being involved in a street mugging, allegedly threatening a man with violence before stealing his wallet and mobile phone. He has now been recalled to prison while the matter is under investigation.
In August 2007, three years before his release, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that he could not be deported back to Italy on completion of his sentence because this would be a breach of his human rights under the 1998 Human Rights Act. This came in spite of a warning from the Home Office that he represented a “present and serious threat to society.”
Frances Lawrence, Philip Lawrence’s widow, was understandably angry; she continues to be angry at the manifest unfairness of this absurd law. It makes me angry too. Please forgive that profanity, but fuck this man’s human rights and fuck the 1998 legislation. Sorry, I really don’t like swearing; this is just a measure of my frustration, I imagine the frustration of so many others.
To all those who would cry with me that “it’s not fair” I would like to point to Switzerland. There a referendum is being held calling for the systematic expulsion of foreigners convicted of a range of crimes, anything from murder to welfare fraud. The campaign, being heavily backed by the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), is estimated to have the support of 54% of the electorate. There are no half measures here, no caveats, no ands, ifs or buts. The law, if passed, will allow for the deportation of all foreigners after completion of their sentence, even if they have lived in Switzerland all of their lives. Fabrice Moscheni, president of the SVP, puts it thus;
It’s very simple. We think that people whom we welcome to Switzerland should respect the rules of this country. If they don’t they should go away. If you welcome somebody into your house, and he comes and destroys everything, I don’t think you would want him to come back.
No, you would not.
The government, worried by this exercise in people power, and fearful of breaching treaties with the EU, has suggested a compromise, whereby cases would be judged on an individual basis. But people are angry, understandably so when one considers that foreigners account for as much as half of the country’s crime.
The liberal establishment is at work trying to badmouth the campaign. It’s a xenophobic abuse of the Swiss referendum system, says Amnesty International, an initiative that “clearly and knowingly breaches fundamental norms of human rights.” But at least some are prepared to admit that the present mood has been caused by ignoring the problem for too long, largely for reasons of political correctness.
For me the issue is perfectly clear: there are some things more important that artificial concepts of human rights; there is justice, justice for the victims of crime, some of whom, like Frances Lawrence, having done no wrong, are still left with their own life sentences without prospect of parole. It’s just not fair.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust to pour a little petrol on the fire: This case makes an interesting "compare and contrast".
ReplyDeleteIf the immigration issue is not addressed the situation will only worsen to the point that your nation will become a third world Theocratic republic. Think not?
ReplyDeleteSo why exactly does England not have the death penalty? Boys like that Leareo Chindamo should be put to the right and necessary consequence of such a horrible murder.
ReplyDeleteHuman rights don't mean being absolved from consequences. I don't understand liberal societies - they will lock people up for saying things and losing their temper but they consider it "against human rights" to execute a murderer.
ReplyDeleteActually, I don't think liberal societies understand themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm not particularly interested in 'justice' per se - whether one considers that a social abstraction or a moral process for rebalancing human relations. What I am interested in is pest control. If pests are causing me a problem, I want them to go away - permanently.
ReplyDeleteYes, Ana, those supposedly 'fundamental norms of human rights' have become artificial concepts, politicized and drained of substantial meaning. Just as we have basic notions of fairness, so I think we have basic notions of rights linked to conventions and reciprocity. (Like queuing - if I am at the head of the queue, you have no right to push in front.) Maybe we need to get back to basics if the notion of rights is to remain meaningful.
ReplyDeleteGovernments sucks hard about every issue that they suppose to enforce.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, nice job.
Adam, on your final point I find myself in absolute agreement. :-)
ReplyDeleteSuciô, I'm getting page not found. Please try reposting or just let me know the subject of the article.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, this is an issue on which I've made my views very clear, both here and elsewhere. I should add that for me it's not about race, or ethnicity, or religion - it's about numbers.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJeremy, the death penalty is considered by most people here to be barbarous, a view I share. It was abolished forty-five years ago and I personally can't see any circumstances in which it would return. Besides, Chindamo was underage at the time of the Lawrence murder, so the death penalty would not have applied. When we did have it there were some fairly serious examples of miscarriage of justice, You might care to look, by way of example, the case of Derek Bentley, executed in the early 1950s.
ReplyDeleteCalvin, yes, I would remove the pests also, wrapped up in a Swiss Roll. :-)
ReplyDeleteMark, I absolutely agree. I must get my nose back into Rawls. :-)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDas, I thank you. :-)
ReplyDeleteGood morning, Ana,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusion in this case but, of course, it will not satisfy those of a different persuasion. They will say (quite rightly) that imposing justice is really rather obvious and easy ; justice comes wholesale in all parts of the world. But a civilised life requires more than justice ; it also requires mercy.
Are there limits to mercy? Are there those who deserve no mercy? What are the grounds for dispensing or withholding that saving grace?
In this point, I'm not sure if it is tremendously unfair. The UK doesn't export their foreign EU-criminals back to the EU and the rest of the EU also doesn't export their British criminals back to the UK. Isn't that fair? Every and each EU country keeps the criminals that it deserves.
ReplyDeleteJamie, first let me apologise for missing you this morning and, second, welcome you back after such a long interval!
ReplyDeleteI hope I don’t sound conceited but I have a broad idea of the approach you take here, the moral imperatives you take into consideration. I’ve always found you highly effective in the calm Socratic way you raise questions, questions that are sometimes impossible to answer. Let me raise one or two of my own. Do you really think justice ‘comes wholesale’ in all parts of the world, or even only in some parts of the world? Is it not law that comes wholesale, and does law really have anything to do with justice?
I saw an excellent drama on BBC 1 this evening, with Juliet Stevenson as a bereaved mother, frustrated by the law at every turn. In the end, in an act of sheer frustration, she sets fire to the factory where her son died. She stands trail on a charge of arson. By all standards of law she is guilty, demonstrably so. The judge sums up against her, but she makes a direct plea to the jury, explaining her circumstances, asking for justice, not law. She is found not guilty.
Our standards of guilt and innocence are entirely human. Only God has an absolute standard of mercy and grace. Here we can only hope for justice, justice for us all.
Jean-Paul, we could possibly have a credit balance here, exporting more than we import!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is about imported alien ideology my dear.
ReplyDeleteDo you see how Switzerland is getting their affairs in order ? Crime runs rampant in socialist societies as they do not punish criminals. The - - - will address these issues. In your articulate fashion, " Fuck them before they Fuck you"
ReplyDeleteAdam, if I were to try to define the perfect example of injustice in operation I would simply suggest that people look at the Soviet Union, from the invention of the gulag under Lenin, to the Moscow Show Trials and mass purges of Stalin, to the use under Brezhnev of malevolent psychiatric practices against dissidents.
ReplyDeleteI would urge you not to push your communism, your state worship and your Stalinism too far here, which for me is even more repellent than Hitlerism. I can only take so much of this kind of nonsense. I won’t publish any more propaganda.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, yes, there is that too.
ReplyDeleteHave you heard of Jury Nullification? In the US, juries are entitled to rule not just upon the facts of a case, but on the applicability of the law itself. Naturally, prosecutors and judges strongly resent this power, and do their utmost to prevent jurors from discovering it. Google it, you will find it interesting.
ReplyDelete@ MGON: Anglo-Russians twice saved the world ? From Napoleon ?
ReplyDeleteCalvin, I shall. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great response, Ana. Yes, of course, by 'justice' I meant the application of the law ; and that does indeed come wholesale, whatever and wherever the law. And its standards vary.
ReplyDeleteThe play you saw, on the other hand, is what I see as the granting of mercy. Without mercy the law is not an ass but a monster.
Your mention of God reminds me of the words of an old priest spoken to an aggrieved parishioner who demanded justice. "Worry not," he said, "God will give you all the justice you want ; but if you want my advice, you'll ask Him for mercy first."
It's good to be back making waves. :-)
@ MGON: That does not make any sense.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJamie, and it's good to feel them, lapping around the side of my boat. :-)
ReplyDeleteAdam, I'm not even going to bother answering your question because you have completely missed the point, which was to illustrate the difference between law and justice. I wish you well of the Human Rights Act, the law of the land. The Bloody Code was once the law of this land, a time when there were an unusually high number of acquittals because juries were more mindful of mercy and justice than law, something clearly beyond your comprehension
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, you see, law and justice should always try to walk hand in hand. If they do not, if the law is perceived to be unresponsive and unjust, then all cohesion breaks down; then people really will start taking the law into their own hands.
ReplyDeleteThe Bloody Code has everything to do with it, because it saw the divorce between law and justice, because it makes a nonsense of your reification of law. Law does not exist in isolation from history and society
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAdam, you always approach matters in such absolute terms, both in a personal and in an intellectual sense. My wit can be barbed; I can be uncompromising and direct, but I never intended to wound. No sentence has been passed on you or anyone else.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBriefly, Brandon Huntley, a 32 yo South African sought asylum from Canada claiming that he had been attacked 6 or 7 times because he was white. Initially, asylum was granted, under I think political pressure, the decision was recently partially reversed. Canadian mining companies have too much to lose in SA for him to win now the case has achieved notoriety.
ReplyDeleteSuciô, how dreadful. I must have a look at the details.
ReplyDelete