In an interesting discussion today which made me realise that maintaining the difference and 'being the role' is essential for those who wear a dogcollar or carry a warrant card.
In both roles there is an 'ontological' reality whereby we don't merely 'do a job' but become different because of it. In becoming a priest we are changed such that our being is also changed and the difference is essential and real. The same is true for those who maintain the law.
There is, within some at least, a mindset that says a copper is never off duty! Of course not, because the role is ontological (albeit only for the time they are in their force) - they are what they are 7*24*365! The same is true of Priests (without the temporary bit)
Both work for a higher authority and seek to maintain laws which define how we live and what our society is and does. Those laws are usually found to be, or are derived from, Judeo-Christian lass and requirements.
Neither are ever 'off duty', something which makes both potentially dangerous people to have as friends if we tend towards lawbreaking (God's or man's).
Someone recently, speaking of an operational situation where a police officer was deployed with them, made the comment was made that 'they' were always looking at what they did in case they could nick them. Amazingly though, when the need arose, 'they' tagged, cuffed and took into custody the naughty people and when there was a question over what had gone on, it was the copper and the law that showed those who acted to have done so correctly and so offered support and protection. The police were actually present to ensure that others were protected - for this is what law does, it offers protection in that it works at prevention and when this fails deals with the miscreants. It keeps the community safe and ensures that things function as they are required to do.
The priest does exactly the same and by prevention and engagement with those who cross the line, seek to bring about a society that lives to higher moral codes and begets a better community that would otherwise be the case.
Neither police or priest can afford to cross the line or permit others to do this. Neither can 'turn a blind eye' without become guilty themselves (Ezekiel and the watchman knowingly nod). Neither can encourage people to cross the line in an effort to bring about natural law, for even if the miscreant deserves their comeuppance, the retribution takes all outside of the law and renders them equally guilty regardless of whether we are looking at God or society as the source of the law!
For both police and priest the entreaty that we should deal with those who break the law (sin) in a balanced manner, not giving in to excess lest we break the laws ourselves (sin).
Both police and priest engages with society by consent. In one it is society who sets the conditions that the police seek to maintain but in both, generally, the laws are God's and so the duty to maintain them is, for both, a higher calling.
Pray for those who police that they may act justly, maintain and live by the law, bring justice where others seek revenge, restore those who seek to do wrong and act against those who will not be restored - but gently and with integrity so that they teach and keep the laws.
Pray for those who take upon themselves the role of priest for in many ways the duties, role, demands and pressures are the same.
Pax
Showing posts with label police intelligence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police intelligence. Show all posts
Monday, 12 September 2011
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
Crime and effective punishment
Working on the theory that Rowan probably won't be racing to respond to Ken Clarke's comments regarding the recent riots as a 'legacy of broken penal system' I thought I'd have a go. Undoubtedly my words will be less erudite and, hopefully, more accessible than Rowan's) but here goes anyway!
Apparently, were we to examine the backgrounds of those who have been collared for their part in the recent riots, we would find that the majority were known criminals who had come into contact with, and been processed by, the judiciary with little or no effect. This should come as no real surprise for the circus that is British criminal law finds itself engaging in ASBOs which are, in my experience, generally to be regarded as ineffective badges of pride for many who receive them. Coppers and PCSOs I talk with often complain that someone will be taken to the nick, charged, appear before the bench, receive their ASBO and be back in the same place from which they were barred within days (and sometimes hours!).
Those who find themselves given community service or bound to appear in a certain place at certain times find the experience anything but punitive. A couple of examples I've heard of (by various means):
A man who'd been convicted of football related incidents was ordered to report to the local nick on match days. When the radio reporter asked him about his punishment mentioned the fact that the spent theSaturday afternoon in the custody suite, where the custody office left a radio playing with the football - so he didn't miss much of the happenings! Now you might say that the punishment was being removed from the actual 'being there' bit, but the bloke didn't think he'd been that punished and found it all a bit funny!
Someone who'd been put away for three months for theft stole a car on his way home from the prison because he didn't want to have to wait for public transport! Funny and depressing in one episode.
A senior officer spoke last night in the BBC discussion on the riots saying, "There was 'no intelligence' on the part of the Police before the riots." How very true. But it doesn't take much intelligence (hence I can understand it) to see that those who engaged in the rioting were the 'hard core' criminal types who live outside of society's rules and codes of conduct. These are the people who live for themselves and merely see prison and the legal system as a niggling nuisance rather than effective deterrent. These are the people who laugh as community sentences, ignore fines and come out of prison largely unaffected and totally unabated in their acts and attitudes. These are indeed the feral underclass which needs to be dealt with be4cause they draw the next group of people into the pool with them.
Then we have the 'followers', those who look at the hard core and see them get away with whatever they appear to choose to with little obvious effect. They see them act as they want and see this underpinned and supported by the welfare state in terms of benefits and the like. These are the people who filled the spaces behind the real criminals and emulated their heroes and in doing so filled the gaps and made detaining the ringleaders more difficult. They are the 'noise' that interferes with the process. The problem is that the two groups together make for something exciting and this causes others, who would otherwise be regarded as honest and law-abiding, to be caught up.
Sadly it is these people 'caught up' who are affected by the process of law and it is these who are seeing quite punitive sentencing now which is devastating for them and fatal for their future careers and expectations. The hard core are, as a generalisation, academically limited and having few career choices see no loss in their being acted against by the system. The followers are a mixed bag and for some the only hope they have is to be promoted into the hard core whilst others, coming to their senses and realising their potential slip back into being part of a stable and productive society.
It appears that 70% of those arrested had a criminal history whilst the other 30% were merely 'good' people who were caught up and who have, by being so, have damaged their community and their own lives. The problem is of course that we all have the potential to make the wrong choices (I still call that sin) and within even the best of us is that small voice that urges us on when rational thinking cries out to us to 'Stop!'.
So I have to agree with Ken Clarke in that the way we deal with criminal acts not only appears ineffective but obviously is. Whilst Labour (and didn't they they do such a good job in so many areas when they held power?) point to Clarke's comments being merely financially motivated I think the man has a point. The point of a penal system is to convict and work towards the person not reoffending (that's why some like capital punishment I guess). We need to change the way the person acts and this isn't done by rewarding bad behaviour - hence the call by many that those who are convicted should lose benefits and be ejected from social housing.
If we take the marginalised and marginalise them further how can we hope to see them inculturated?
If we take the 'have nots' and make them such that they have less how do you expect them to respond?
But if we take the ignorant and educate them, the excluded and include them, the one dimensional lives and set them free surely we will see the people, their families, their homes, their communities also change.
The problem is that there is a fine line between doing those things and being seen to reward those who live outside of our society. The problem is that to do so is costly in terms of energy, effort, societal will and (as always) financially.
But the cost to our society is surely greater if we don't do this?
This is surely the Christian basis of our dealings with wrongdoers - we take them and convict them of their wrongdoing and educate them such that they become transformed by the renewing of their mind. And for for those who won't be - then we have the full force of law and the security of removing them from the society that they so corrupt and damage.
Pax
Apparently, were we to examine the backgrounds of those who have been collared for their part in the recent riots, we would find that the majority were known criminals who had come into contact with, and been processed by, the judiciary with little or no effect. This should come as no real surprise for the circus that is British criminal law finds itself engaging in ASBOs which are, in my experience, generally to be regarded as ineffective badges of pride for many who receive them. Coppers and PCSOs I talk with often complain that someone will be taken to the nick, charged, appear before the bench, receive their ASBO and be back in the same place from which they were barred within days (and sometimes hours!).
Those who find themselves given community service or bound to appear in a certain place at certain times find the experience anything but punitive. A couple of examples I've heard of (by various means):
A man who'd been convicted of football related incidents was ordered to report to the local nick on match days. When the radio reporter asked him about his punishment mentioned the fact that the spent theSaturday afternoon in the custody suite, where the custody office left a radio playing with the football - so he didn't miss much of the happenings! Now you might say that the punishment was being removed from the actual 'being there' bit, but the bloke didn't think he'd been that punished and found it all a bit funny!
Someone who'd been put away for three months for theft stole a car on his way home from the prison because he didn't want to have to wait for public transport! Funny and depressing in one episode.
A senior officer spoke last night in the BBC discussion on the riots saying, "There was 'no intelligence' on the part of the Police before the riots." How very true. But it doesn't take much intelligence (hence I can understand it) to see that those who engaged in the rioting were the 'hard core' criminal types who live outside of society's rules and codes of conduct. These are the people who live for themselves and merely see prison and the legal system as a niggling nuisance rather than effective deterrent. These are the people who laugh as community sentences, ignore fines and come out of prison largely unaffected and totally unabated in their acts and attitudes. These are indeed the feral underclass which needs to be dealt with be4cause they draw the next group of people into the pool with them.
Then we have the 'followers', those who look at the hard core and see them get away with whatever they appear to choose to with little obvious effect. They see them act as they want and see this underpinned and supported by the welfare state in terms of benefits and the like. These are the people who filled the spaces behind the real criminals and emulated their heroes and in doing so filled the gaps and made detaining the ringleaders more difficult. They are the 'noise' that interferes with the process. The problem is that the two groups together make for something exciting and this causes others, who would otherwise be regarded as honest and law-abiding, to be caught up.
Sadly it is these people 'caught up' who are affected by the process of law and it is these who are seeing quite punitive sentencing now which is devastating for them and fatal for their future careers and expectations. The hard core are, as a generalisation, academically limited and having few career choices see no loss in their being acted against by the system. The followers are a mixed bag and for some the only hope they have is to be promoted into the hard core whilst others, coming to their senses and realising their potential slip back into being part of a stable and productive society.
It appears that 70% of those arrested had a criminal history whilst the other 30% were merely 'good' people who were caught up and who have, by being so, have damaged their community and their own lives. The problem is of course that we all have the potential to make the wrong choices (I still call that sin) and within even the best of us is that small voice that urges us on when rational thinking cries out to us to 'Stop!'.
So I have to agree with Ken Clarke in that the way we deal with criminal acts not only appears ineffective but obviously is. Whilst Labour (and didn't they they do such a good job in so many areas when they held power?) point to Clarke's comments being merely financially motivated I think the man has a point. The point of a penal system is to convict and work towards the person not reoffending (that's why some like capital punishment I guess). We need to change the way the person acts and this isn't done by rewarding bad behaviour - hence the call by many that those who are convicted should lose benefits and be ejected from social housing.
If we take the marginalised and marginalise them further how can we hope to see them inculturated?
If we take the 'have nots' and make them such that they have less how do you expect them to respond?
But if we take the ignorant and educate them, the excluded and include them, the one dimensional lives and set them free surely we will see the people, their families, their homes, their communities also change.
The problem is that there is a fine line between doing those things and being seen to reward those who live outside of our society. The problem is that to do so is costly in terms of energy, effort, societal will and (as always) financially.
But the cost to our society is surely greater if we don't do this?
This is surely the Christian basis of our dealings with wrongdoers - we take them and convict them of their wrongdoing and educate them such that they become transformed by the renewing of their mind. And for for those who won't be - then we have the full force of law and the security of removing them from the society that they so corrupt and damage.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)