The police have deemed the recent raft of pro-prosecution legislation insufficient. They become bored of all those tiresome judicial processes and now want more summary powers.
Readers may also be interested in another recent provision that allows citizens to be stripped of their property and livelihood without a criminal trial:
s 241 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: allows the newly created Assets Recovery Agency to apply to the High Court for a recovery order to obtain “property obtained through unlawful conduct” The power can be exercised “whether or not any proceedings have been brought in connection with the property.” Whether the property has been obtained through unlawful conduct is decided on the balance of probabilities.
Summary justice does have the merit of being quick, and also cheap. And the kind of people who vote tend to be the kind of people who pay taxes. They are also usually the kind of people who always consider themselves to be the victims rather the the perpetrators of criminal or anti social behaviour and therefore applaud the inroads into the freedoms of others.
It’s a slippery slope of course. Many countries deal with the problem of undesirables by simply removing them. Even cheaper as you then don’t have judicial or prison costs.
P.S. Whilst the anti ID card lobby are cheering the current shelving of the bill, what you probably haven’t heard is the suggestion of a national childrens database, to be created from birth from everyone, ostensibly on child welfare grounds. It would have details of health records, school attendance etc, and would no doubt of course be deleted once the child reached 16.
The AOL “vote” was 3 to 1 in favour of increasing police powers of summary justice. The majority in these will of course have the vote, but will presumably not be required to react as some anti-terror power will be invoked ‘ere long
Whilst I’m against summary justice per se, on pragmatic grounds its hard to argue against on the spot fines for minor offences such as littering and speeding. The new powers proposed will allow the police to affect people’s liberty which is entering into very dangerous territory. Interesting the Police Federation have come out against the new powers on the basis that they will have a negative effect on community relations
One assumes that any childrens’ database would also include details of the parents and likely other relatives, guardians and caregivers too. If so, ‘naturally’ the data would need to be cross-referenced with the sex offenders register, and police databases and the if-it-they-ever-get-it-to-work national health database for those adults as well as the children. Given that the majority of adults are, at some time or other, parents or guardians of at least one child, what this proposal amounts to is a database of all citizens via the, er, back passage so to speak.
Indeed. And I find it particuarly odious that this is all being done supposedly in the interests of child welfare.