Don't be surprised when people get away with murder

Whilst the desire, in most democratic and free societies, to have fair justice for all is commendable, as with everything, there is a line. I think we can mostly agree that really heavy handed punishment for minor crimes is often unhelpful and the chances of re-offending are very high if you don't offer rehabilitation, on top of the punishment, be that community service or a short stay in prison. 

​

However, when we cross over into the. territory of serious offences such as murder, child abuse, people trafficking and rape, this is a whole different ballgame, particularly when it comes to sentencing in order to safeguard everyone from suffering at the hands of these convicted criminals in future, as so often happens

​​

The issue we have in our free societies is that we feel we have to be empathetic to certain criminals because they had a tough upbringing or other circumstance that made them the way they are or lead them to commit the crime. I think it's an admirable notion to try to understand why someone is a certain way and try to learn from it for future generations, but for the person who has committed the crime, I am afraid it's too late for leniency based on circumstance. 

​

The reasons for this are many but the most important one is that it is a complete insult to the victim and their family.. Secondly, anything other than life in prison for murder is too short because of the risk that murderer could pose to other innocent members of society if he/she were to be released. In short, why should the rest of us be put at risk in the name of clemency ? 

​

The irony is that sometimes the people who have a liberal view on sentencing and things like reducing the power to section people who are deemed a threat,  are the same citizens who are up in arms when people like Valdo Calocane, where there were numerous warning signs, when he was allowed to roam free and kill. You cannot have it both ways. So whilst the "justice" system continues to be lenient and also lacks the mandate to pre-arrest potentially dangerous persons, we should not be surprised when people get away with murder. The whole defence case for Calocane was based on his supposed insanity but he clearly was, or is, not. 

​

In essence, if we really want to protect the public from random killings, we need direct action for people like Calacone and inevitably, some people will be unfairly treated. That, I'm afraid, will be the cost of random murder prevention which certain members of parliament and the public seem so desperate to achieve.. That said, these incidents are few and far between so perhaps we have to accept them as part of living in a liberal society. 

​

More pressing, as far as I am concerned, is the need to detain and shackle those terrorists who are on the watch list but still manage to commit their atrocities. What is the point in the secret service, when they obtain solid intelligence, when the pathetic laws of this country say "it's a violation of their civil rights to detain them before a crime has actually been committed." We may as well not bother. 

​

Either way, if we want more law and order, on all levels of crime, we need to get much tougher on criminals, ensure people serve their sentences for very serious crime and also educate our children and teenagers better about the probable results of them committing crime. 

​

G. Hoff - Editor

​