And the
Lord said let there be light and there was light; and his lordship said let
there be law and there was law. And the law begat offenders and the offenders
begat defendants and the defendants begat judges and the judges begat trials
and the trials begat witnesses and the witnesses begat complainants and the
complainants begat victims and the victims begat czars and the czars……….
Before
recognised systems of judicial order justice was often a personal matter. The
ancient Israelites or perhaps it was Hammurabi aware of the folly of unending
tribal disputes instituted limits to the extent of revenge by an injured party.
We recognise this as an eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth: ie retribution
must not be greater than the original crime. As far back as the first
millennium the concept of “blood money” followed this concept in Europe. This
tradition has been followed in Islam. Known as Diya the Qur'an prescribes this so
that compensation can be demanded and not retribution. Indeed with my limited
knowledge I understand that some Arabic societies continue to allow victims to
have their justice in this form. Rarely
did righteous outpourings prevent those sentenced to hang from meeting their
maker at the end of all hope and a rope.
Public
influence on sentencing and outcomes probably began its current ascendancy as a
result of the wrongful convictions of the 1970s and 80s combined with a
realisation that there were many bad practices within police forces and by
police officers. Increased public input into the justice system where it is de rigueur to
state and restate that the “victim” is the centrality of that system has increased
the amount of ignorant ranting about sentencing and sentencers such that
“Guidelines” must be followed unless cogent reasons militate against such
outcomes.
Last year a member of my family went on holiday in
Sicily; a destination I have yet to visit. I was reminded immediately of
“vendetta”, one of many Italian words which have entered our language and which
conjures up an image of an ineffective legal system being overtaken by the
personal pursuit undertaken by an aggrieved party seeking appropriate
retribution from a supposed perpetrator.
In
England, however, the so-called 'Blood Money Act' was repealed in 1818. The law
and the state took full control of punishment. My overtly sensitive social
antennae tell me that the ancient philosophy is trying hard to be regenerated
along the lines of an undead zombie. An apparent trend to a “victim
centred” justice system is
perhaps the thin edge of a resurrected wedge; an unwelcome change IMHO to our
long evolved situation where the state assumes responsibility for the treatment
of offenders and is answerable at the ballot box for its success or otherwise
in meeting citizens` needs. The Leveson Inquiry and its conclusions lent credit
to the thought that this is the accepted new approach to victim redress. It is
a dangerous approach. A simple magistrate has no credibility in criticism of a
lordship`s knowledge of the law and its application but along with anybody else
I can articulate concerns regarding his philosophy of how a fundamental tenet
of a society can be undermined in an apparent good cause. Victims must feel
that their concerns are acknowledged by the “system”. Victim Support, Witness
Care and the importance of Compensation have had increasingly front of the financial queue status. Indeed offenders`
financial payments in addition to other disposals were vastly increased a few
months ago ostensibly to fund the aforementioned activities. But it must be the
courts that exercise and control retribution even against journalistic law
breakers; not the Dowlers or the McCanns or the Grants or the Moseleys etc.
however much their grievances seem to cry out for revenge. Those grievances
should be against the non application of the law and those who contributed to
that. That revenge should not be against the concepts underlying a free
society.
This
extended preamble has been prompted by the amount of cant in print and other
media over the goings on in a dismal northern town with a football team unable
to score goals. Well; they have
certainly changed direction with the current controversy and own goal of the “yes
we will, no we won`t sign a convicted rapist”.
It is an affront to natural
justice that both the shadow sports minister Clive Efford and the Greater
Manchester Police and Crime Commissioner Tony Lloyd both seized the moment to
further their own political purposes by publicly making it clear their
opposition to Ched Evans resuming his
career as a professional footballer. It
is apparent that one person`s opportunity for rehabilitation is another`s
opportunity to curry favour with the mob and its lynch mentality. The law is as it is written. There are those who argue that eg a doctor or
broadcaster would not be allowed to resume his occupation in similar
circumstances so why not the footballer who is a “role model”. Medicine and many other professions have
their own legal protocols to deal with miscreants. Broadcasters have a public duty which cannot
tolerate compromise. To equate this case
with those is pure ignorant thinking. As far as being so called role models;
footballers or other professional sportsmen are just that; people who are at
the top of their game. They do not ask
for their moral outlook on life to be part of their public personas.
This
whole sorry saga is taking us down a road where the law and our legal system
have no right to be. This “victim
centred” approach is driven directly from the 1960s and the women`s liberation
movement which fifty years ago had a great deal of
justification. The shrill voices of
recent days however have become another step nudging us towards a system of law which
is an affront to the nation which celebrates
the 800th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta.
