The theory being that such draconian actions will encourage people to desist
from criminal activity and the public will see that those who do not are
punished for their antisocial actions.For Zero Tolerance to work it means that there must be a fundamental
shift in the way that petty crime is treated; no longer will the police have
the power to simply reprimand or caution as in the past but a full prosecution
must ensue. Anything else means that the whole concept of Zero Tolerance
is nothing more than an empty promise or a back door to intimidation of
various groups.
No longer will the police be able to stop a person with the words, "Excuse me
sir, that cigarette packet you threw on the floor; that is a crime called
littering. I suggest you pick it up now and we'll say no more on the matter"; no
they will have to prosecute for littering.
No longer will they be able to follow a vehicle doing 31mph in a 30mph limit
and decide, because the road is clear and the driver is otherwise behaving
admirably, that they will let it pass; again they must prosecute for
speeding.
No longer will they be able to turn a blind eye to the joint that a
Multiple Sclerosis sufferer has in their pocket no matter how little of the
drug it contains; no, it's possession, time for a prosecution.
Which means that the courts will soon be full of trivial cases where nothing
is gained by such pointless prosecutions.
Which will undoubtedly lead to the police having powers to impose on the
spot fines rather than requiring a full court prosecution.
Which in no time at all leads to a police state.
A rather amusing irony of Zero Tolerance is that, as the law stands now,
it is a criminal offence not to inform the police of a crime that you have
knowledge of.
Which means that every time a driver breaks the speed limit, even by one mile
per hour, they should turn themselves in at the nearest police station.
Now I can just imagine turning up at the local station every night, joining
the mile long queue, and admitting that, "I did 31mph on the High Street today";
it won't be long before the desk sergeant is screaming, "F--k off ! Leave me
alone", as soon as you enter the station sporting a big smile or wide grin.
Which just goes to show that Zero Tolerance is a complete joke and is
impractical to implement or carry through to completion.
Another irony is, in the case of cars, that the speedometer needs to only be
10% accurate at 30mph in order to pass an MOT; so even the most law abiding
citizen in the land may be tootling down the road believing that they are
well below the speed limit only to find themselves hauled up in court for
breaking it.
Or are we going to allow some leeway in these circumstances ?
In which case; what is the point of even suggesting Zero Tolerance as
a viable idea ?
Zero Evidence
Even more insidious than the principal of Zero Tolerance is the prospect
of convicting where the prosecution have produced Zero Evidence.
In the same week that Blair condemned the Chinese on their human rights record;
Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, took further, tentative steps to destroying
human rights in the UK.
This is yet another, laudable on the surface, scheme aimed at ensuring that the
benefactors of crime cannot escape justice simply because it is impossible for
the authorities to gain a conviction for lack of evidence.
The principle being that, if a person believed to be benefiting from the
proceeds of crime cannot explain where their monetary income or personal
possessions have derived from, then the courts have a power to take these from
them.
The frightening change here is that Britain is drastically moving from an
established Innocent Until Proven Guilty to a Guilty Unless Proven
Innocent justice system.
Not unlike the Spanish Inquisition of the Dark Ages.
Whilst there are undoubtedly some criminals who hide behind many layers of
front-men and petty criminals and remain safe from prosecution because their
association with criminal activity cannot be proven, these people, with huge
hauls of illegally obtained money are entirely likely to get off, having
engaged the services of the best barristers in the land, whilst it is the
entirely innocent or those living on the borders of crime who are likely to
suffer.
Take the case of a woman engaged in the oldest profession in the world;
prostitution ...
This is not a crime in Britain ( although living off the earnings of
prostitution is ). If such a woman becomes suspected by the police of having
gained her money from some illegal means, then she may be hauled before a
court and it will be demanded that she explain how she came by her money.
Why should this woman, who has done nothing illegal, have to explain to the
court that she is a prostitute and expose herself to possible public
condemnation for what she does ?
Even the situation with genuine criminals becomes difficult to rationalise ...
If a known criminal happens to have in their possession an item that is
suspected to have been stolen then, under the existing law, the prosecution
will only be able to secure a conviction if they can prove that such a person
has actually stolen, or handled, such an item; a previous history of crime does
not mean that all their possessions have been gained by illegal means or by
profiteering from crime.
Under the proposed law; it will be up to the accused to prove that they have
come by their possessions in a lawful manner.
Which means that the police, being unable to prove something was stolen, can
simply go for the easier alternative of saying, "Prove this is not stolen",
without having to offer any evidence of their own in support of such a claim
and may still gain the conviction they were after.
Just because someone can't produce a receipt for an item they bought, and the
shop they bought it in doesn't remember them buying it, and there's very little
evidence of purchase because cash was paid, doesn't mean that such an item was
stolen. What if they'd bought it from a car boot sale ?
Now, whilst it may be a good thing to see that all criminals are punished for
their crimes, where do we draw the line ?
How many possessions in your home can you prove, beyond reasonable doubt, are
yours ?
Zero Representation
Another of the Home Secretary's Good Ideas is to limit the right of
accused rapists to represent themselves in court.
This is an idea based, not on legal precedent, but on more knee-jerk reaction to
public pressure.
The whole premise of this legislation arises from a court case where an
accused rapist, found guilty in that case, subjected the woman raped to
an horrific ordeal of cross-examination in the witness box.
The press and the public, not surprisingly and correctly, complained about the
situation and it was obvious to all and sundry that such a situation should
never be allowed to arise again.
However, rather than chastising the Judge who had let the whole proceedings get
entirely out of hand, a proposal was made to curb the rights of accused rapists
to represent themselves.
It is a fundamental right that any accused person should have the right to
represent themselves in court; they may not believe that a Barrister or anyone
else would be able or willing to present their case as they feel it should be.
A Judge has complete authority over his court and is quite capable of exercising
such power when necessary. Just because a particular Judge failed to exercise
his power in a particular case does not mean that all accused rapists should
forego their rights to self representation.
And why should alleged rapists, accused of one of the most serious crimes
against a person, be singled out as prohibited from representing themselves ?
Zero Credibility
The three concepts of Zero Tolerance, the refusal of Self
Representation and the ability to convict based upon a defendant's
inability to produce evidence of innocence are so outrageous that a Right
Wing government would probably flinch at introducing such legislation.
Which makes one wonder why such proposals are now coming from a party that
claims to be Left of Centre.
