Bush should spend less time with that crook Vicente Fox and more time with Tony Blair. These ASBO's (Anti-social Behavior Orders) would be just the ticket for America - fix this place right up.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1664712,00.html
Our citizens should not live in fear
Those who criticise the new criminal justice measures, such as ASBOs, fail to understand that the most important freedom is that of harm from others
Tony Blair
Sunday December 11, 2005
The Observer
In advance of the publication of new proposals on anti-social behaviour and organised crime, we will once again, as a government, be under attack for eroding essential civil liberties. It is right to set this argument within a more coherent intellectual and political framework. It is not just about tough versus soft but about whose civil liberties come first.
Britain, by 1997, had undergone rapid cultural and social change in recent decades. Much of this was necessary and good. Rigid class divisions and old-fashioned prejudices were holding Britain back. But some social change had damaging and unforeseen consequences.
Family ties were weakened. Communities were more fractured, sometimes as a result of desirable objectives like social mobility or diversity, sometimes as the consequence of mass unemployment and failed economic policies. Civil institutions such as the church declined in importance. At the start of the 20th century, communities shared a strong moral code. By the end of the century this was no longer as true.
As society changed, so do did the nature of crime. There was an explosion in crime and, in particular, violence fuelled by drug abuse. There were far more guns in circulation and far less reluctance to use them. We saw the growth of new crimes such as people trafficking, computer fraud and mobile phone theft. Organised crime became a major international operation.
But while the world had moved on, the criminal justice system was stuck. By 1997, it was failing every reasonable test that could be applied. Crime had doubled. Trials were ineffective, witness protection was poor and the courts were very inefficient. There were huge delays, for example, between young criminals being charged and coming to court.
We thus inherited a system which was increasingly unable to deal with the problems it faced. Anti-social behaviour was becoming a very serious problem on some estates but the courts were too cumbersome a process to deal with it expeditiously. The system was failing.
The choice was stark; either we accepted that nothing could be done, that we would allow the rights of victims routinely to be trampled on, or we granted new powers to local authorities and the police. This was, and is, the rationale for all the so-called summary powers that we have introduced.
These powers have a strong philosophical justification, from within the Labour tradition. Social democratic thought was always the application of morality to political philosophy. One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.
That was why it was important that rights were coupled once again with responsibilities. As Tawney once put it: 'what we have been witnessing ... is the breakdown of society on the basis of rights divorced from obligations'.
On the left, by the 1980s, we had bent our argument too far in the opposite direction. We had come to be associated with the belief that the causes of crime are entirely structural. In defiance of our own traditions of thought we had eliminated individual responsibility from the account. We had lost sight, too, of the fact that it was those who depended most on a Labour Government to improve their lives who suffered most from crime and anti-social behaviour and were most insistent that we do more to help them.
This, of course, did not mean we could ignore the divisions in our country. Instead of record unemployment, we now have record numbers of people in work. Sustained investment in schools is improving education for all. The New Deal has helped one million youngsters off the scrapheap and into work. Sure Start and the New Deal for Communities are making huge differences to the most deprived neighbourhoods.
However, it wasn't just a question of matching legal rights with legal responsibilities. It was about changing the legal processes by which such rights and responsibilities are determined. Traditional court processes and laws simply could not and did not protect people against the random violence and low-level disorder that affected their lives. Yes, you could, with Herculean application, remove the drug dealer living in the street. But the reality was, because of the Herculean effort required, it wasn't done. Now, by giving more so-called summary powers, it can be.
We have provided new tools including Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and dispersal orders and will enable them to take tough action against the pubs and clubs fostering drunken violence.
Police have further tools such as fixed penalty notices and penalty notices to tackle disorder. Where these new powers are being used effectively they are making a big difference and restoring public confidence that the criminal justice system is supporting the law-abiding majority.
These measures are already starting to work. Tomorrow I will unveil some new research that shows the progress that we have made. We will continue by providing a uniformed presence in every community through neighbourhood policing. The 'Respect' action plan which will be published in January will set out in more detail the new suite of powers and policies to go further and faster to tackle the problems. We will continue to review powers available for the Serious Crime Agency to ensure maximum disruption for those engaged in organised criminality. There will be a stronger focus on re-offending with sentence plans for offenders. We will have renewed focus on the most persistent drug users.
Our critics, who usually do not live in the communities most affected by crime and anti-social behaviour, often describe these measures as overly punitive and a threat to basic legal principles. We are criticised for introducing rough justice and removing courts from the sentencing process. In fact, we are very sensitive to the need to preserve accountability. Authority always has to be exercised with due restraint. We will ensure that good appeals processes are always built into new structures. The powers we have extended to the authorities can, and do, come under legal challenge.
But this is not a debate between those who value liberty and those who do not. It is an argument about the types of liberties that need to be protected given the changing nature of the crimes that violate them. And it is an attempt to protect the most fundamental liberty of all - freedom from harm by others.
Critics of our response need to face the following question squarely. If the criminal justice system was failing people, as it clearly was, what ought to be done about it? To do nothing is one option. But surely it is to do better by the British people to devise relevant powers, limited by the right of appeal, to ensure that communities do not have to live with unacceptable levels of fear and intimidation. The basic liberties of the law-abiding citizen should come first.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1664712,00.html
Our citizens should not live in fear
Those who criticise the new criminal justice measures, such as ASBOs, fail to understand that the most important freedom is that of harm from others
Tony Blair
Sunday December 11, 2005
The Observer
In advance of the publication of new proposals on anti-social behaviour and organised crime, we will once again, as a government, be under attack for eroding essential civil liberties. It is right to set this argument within a more coherent intellectual and political framework. It is not just about tough versus soft but about whose civil liberties come first.
Britain, by 1997, had undergone rapid cultural and social change in recent decades. Much of this was necessary and good. Rigid class divisions and old-fashioned prejudices were holding Britain back. But some social change had damaging and unforeseen consequences.
Family ties were weakened. Communities were more fractured, sometimes as a result of desirable objectives like social mobility or diversity, sometimes as the consequence of mass unemployment and failed economic policies. Civil institutions such as the church declined in importance. At the start of the 20th century, communities shared a strong moral code. By the end of the century this was no longer as true.
As society changed, so do did the nature of crime. There was an explosion in crime and, in particular, violence fuelled by drug abuse. There were far more guns in circulation and far less reluctance to use them. We saw the growth of new crimes such as people trafficking, computer fraud and mobile phone theft. Organised crime became a major international operation.
But while the world had moved on, the criminal justice system was stuck. By 1997, it was failing every reasonable test that could be applied. Crime had doubled. Trials were ineffective, witness protection was poor and the courts were very inefficient. There were huge delays, for example, between young criminals being charged and coming to court.
We thus inherited a system which was increasingly unable to deal with the problems it faced. Anti-social behaviour was becoming a very serious problem on some estates but the courts were too cumbersome a process to deal with it expeditiously. The system was failing.
The choice was stark; either we accepted that nothing could be done, that we would allow the rights of victims routinely to be trampled on, or we granted new powers to local authorities and the police. This was, and is, the rationale for all the so-called summary powers that we have introduced.
These powers have a strong philosophical justification, from within the Labour tradition. Social democratic thought was always the application of morality to political philosophy. One of the basic insights of the left, one of its distinguishing features, is to caution against too excessive an individualism. People must live together and one of the basic tasks of government is to facilitate this living together, to ensure that the many can live without fear of the few.
That was why it was important that rights were coupled once again with responsibilities. As Tawney once put it: 'what we have been witnessing ... is the breakdown of society on the basis of rights divorced from obligations'.
On the left, by the 1980s, we had bent our argument too far in the opposite direction. We had come to be associated with the belief that the causes of crime are entirely structural. In defiance of our own traditions of thought we had eliminated individual responsibility from the account. We had lost sight, too, of the fact that it was those who depended most on a Labour Government to improve their lives who suffered most from crime and anti-social behaviour and were most insistent that we do more to help them.
This, of course, did not mean we could ignore the divisions in our country. Instead of record unemployment, we now have record numbers of people in work. Sustained investment in schools is improving education for all. The New Deal has helped one million youngsters off the scrapheap and into work. Sure Start and the New Deal for Communities are making huge differences to the most deprived neighbourhoods.
However, it wasn't just a question of matching legal rights with legal responsibilities. It was about changing the legal processes by which such rights and responsibilities are determined. Traditional court processes and laws simply could not and did not protect people against the random violence and low-level disorder that affected their lives. Yes, you could, with Herculean application, remove the drug dealer living in the street. But the reality was, because of the Herculean effort required, it wasn't done. Now, by giving more so-called summary powers, it can be.
We have provided new tools including Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, acceptable behaviour contracts and dispersal orders and will enable them to take tough action against the pubs and clubs fostering drunken violence.
Police have further tools such as fixed penalty notices and penalty notices to tackle disorder. Where these new powers are being used effectively they are making a big difference and restoring public confidence that the criminal justice system is supporting the law-abiding majority.
These measures are already starting to work. Tomorrow I will unveil some new research that shows the progress that we have made. We will continue by providing a uniformed presence in every community through neighbourhood policing. The 'Respect' action plan which will be published in January will set out in more detail the new suite of powers and policies to go further and faster to tackle the problems. We will continue to review powers available for the Serious Crime Agency to ensure maximum disruption for those engaged in organised criminality. There will be a stronger focus on re-offending with sentence plans for offenders. We will have renewed focus on the most persistent drug users.
Our critics, who usually do not live in the communities most affected by crime and anti-social behaviour, often describe these measures as overly punitive and a threat to basic legal principles. We are criticised for introducing rough justice and removing courts from the sentencing process. In fact, we are very sensitive to the need to preserve accountability. Authority always has to be exercised with due restraint. We will ensure that good appeals processes are always built into new structures. The powers we have extended to the authorities can, and do, come under legal challenge.
But this is not a debate between those who value liberty and those who do not. It is an argument about the types of liberties that need to be protected given the changing nature of the crimes that violate them. And it is an attempt to protect the most fundamental liberty of all - freedom from harm by others.
Critics of our response need to face the following question squarely. If the criminal justice system was failing people, as it clearly was, what ought to be done about it? To do nothing is one option. But surely it is to do better by the British people to devise relevant powers, limited by the right of appeal, to ensure that communities do not have to live with unacceptable levels of fear and intimidation. The basic liberties of the law-abiding citizen should come first.
