Tweet
Robotham seems to be prescribing a modified Guantanamo style prescription to the crime problem...locking suspects up over the short term even if you have insufficient evidence to charge them . Under normal circumstance I would be first in line to disagree with the lock em up and ask questions later approach but these are not normal circumstances. The police need some breathing room to get their act together. The human rights people would howl but if you include them in the process maybe it would alleviate some of their concerns.
Our immediate short-term objective must be to seize the initiative against the criminals and to put them on the defensive. Only then can we even begin to think of how to score goals.
The only way to do this is by applying a series of preventive detention orders. These would be human rights incursions largely against poor youth, and we should admit that frankly. But we would regulate them judicially.
The reason why we need preventive detention is because we cannot get convictions against the existing gunmen. Even where we can, collecting evidence which can stand up in court and then the trial itself, takes too long. There is no real prospect of reducing this length of time in the short run. We cannot afford to wait anymore. It's no use talking about better police intelligence if we cannot act immediately on such intelligence.
We have about 4,260 youth leading the onslaught of violence (30 per hotspot). We will not have to lock up all of them without trial. We just have to send a powerful message by making an example of a few. Let's say three ringleaders per hotspot - or about 500 persons.
We should house people we detain in very good, humane conditions. No razor wire, no search lights, no concentration camp, vengeful, counter-productive Gun Court rubbish. On the contrary, it should strive to be constructive and rehabilitative. This is crucial. We are trying to win the youth, not crush them.
Such orders are now common in the United Kingdom - sanctified by the Mother of Parliaments and the Law Lords in the Privy Council no less. Under the Terrorism Act of 2006, a suspect can be detained for 28 days without charge. The British government has been trying unsuccessfully to get it extended to at least 40 days. Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police, has called for an extension to 90 days.
In addition, the British have a system of 'control orders', which in effect, boil down to house arrest without trial. Further, under the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, the Police Reform Act of 2002, and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act of 2003, 'anti-social behaviour orders' as well as 'acceptable behaviour contracts' can be imposed by a court (in the former case), ultimately with the possibility of leading to imprisonment.
Our immediate short-term objective must be to seize the initiative against the criminals and to put them on the defensive. Only then can we even begin to think of how to score goals.
The only way to do this is by applying a series of preventive detention orders. These would be human rights incursions largely against poor youth, and we should admit that frankly. But we would regulate them judicially.
The reason why we need preventive detention is because we cannot get convictions against the existing gunmen. Even where we can, collecting evidence which can stand up in court and then the trial itself, takes too long. There is no real prospect of reducing this length of time in the short run. We cannot afford to wait anymore. It's no use talking about better police intelligence if we cannot act immediately on such intelligence.
We have about 4,260 youth leading the onslaught of violence (30 per hotspot). We will not have to lock up all of them without trial. We just have to send a powerful message by making an example of a few. Let's say three ringleaders per hotspot - or about 500 persons.
We should house people we detain in very good, humane conditions. No razor wire, no search lights, no concentration camp, vengeful, counter-productive Gun Court rubbish. On the contrary, it should strive to be constructive and rehabilitative. This is crucial. We are trying to win the youth, not crush them.
Such orders are now common in the United Kingdom - sanctified by the Mother of Parliaments and the Law Lords in the Privy Council no less. Under the Terrorism Act of 2006, a suspect can be detained for 28 days without charge. The British government has been trying unsuccessfully to get it extended to at least 40 days. Sir Ian Blair, the head of the Metropolitan Police, has called for an extension to 90 days.
In addition, the British have a system of 'control orders', which in effect, boil down to house arrest without trial. Further, under the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, the Police Reform Act of 2002, and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act of 2003, 'anti-social behaviour orders' as well as 'acceptable behaviour contracts' can be imposed by a court (in the former case), ultimately with the possibility of leading to imprisonment.
Comment