There are worse problems. For example, there was a nasty episode of rapes (including underage girls) in Oldham, England. There are some grounds to believe that local police chose to ignore the early signs and complaints because the perpetrators were Muslims, a problem caused by political correctness (i.e. a member of an ethnic/religious minority should be treated with kid gloves, because even looking at them funny is grounds for an investigation. In the US, an investigation against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation was dismissed shortly after Obama won the election. (A coincidence? Even if it was, it stinks like Limburger.) And, also in America, the Department of Homeland Security seems to be more worried about survivalists and constructionists than either protecting the border or keeping an eye on Islamic terrorist groups.
This is a major problem. But it gets worse.
There is a fundamental difference between personal guilt and institutional guilt. Personal guilt exists when someone commits a crime, however defined. Institutional guilt, however, exists when the organisation chooses to cover up the crime or soft-pedal it, rather than carry out the hard task of punishment. Contrast, for example, the Catholic Church’s tepid response to sexual abusers among the clergy in comparison to the US Army’s response to Steven Green and his comrades. The Church has spent more time trying to deny the existence of paedophilic priests than actually removing them, while the Army reacted, investigated, tried the suspects, found them guilty and put them in jail. Guess which one is not institutionally guilty?
It isn't the Church.
For police officers, the growing separation between them and civilians leads to a belief that policemen, their comrades, are always in the right and/or picked on by ignorant civilians. There is some truth in that viewpoint. The arrest of Henry Louis Gates was a case of a police officer trying to follow procedure being lambasted for it by the chattering classes – including, in a dangerous foretaste of things to come, the President of the United States. It was not a case of racism, but – as always – the charge of racism requires the person accused to clear himself, rather than be proven guilty. Law enforcement officers were justly furious at both the accusations and the President’s intervention.
This tends to lead to an ‘us against them’ attitude that is dangerous at the best of times. It is hard for humans to realise that ‘us’ may be in the wrong, or that ‘one of us’ isn't the fine fellow we like to think he is. Police officers thus tend to rally round other police officers, unless there is very clear evidence that the police officer in question is a criminal, corrupt or just a colossal asshole. There’s one in every large organisation. ‘Betraying’ ones fellows is, in the eyes of many police officers, dangerously corrosive. Police officers have to trust each other to do their job. But this very trend – and the contempt it leads to for ‘them’ (i.e. the public) – destroys trust in the police force.
(Something similar may have played a role in SF fandom’s unwillingness to contemplate the possibility that the charges against Marion Eleanor Zimmer and Walter H. Breen were rooted in reality. They were ‘us’ as far as fandom was concerned.)
And this is far from the only problem. Police officers don’t actually sentence criminals to jail. That’s the task of the courts. But the courts have become increasingly politicised over the last few years, with high-visibility cases further damaging confidence in law and order. The OJ Simpson case and the Traven Martin/George Zimmerman cases were both highly politicised, creating a situation that – no matter the result – a large percentage of America would be unhappy with the verdict. (The Zimmerman case saw the worst abuse of power in an attempt to find something – anything – to pin on Zimmerman.)
And then we have laws intended to stop terrorists being used for other purposes. Britain’s anti-terrorist laws have been used to spy on civilians for reasons that have nothing to do with terrorists. Indeed, hate-spewing preachers have been allowed to go free and practice their vile art while ordinary citizens have been arrested for very minor crimes, if indeed they are minor crimes. (It is notable that the original builders of the Finsbury Park Mosque protested to the police about the takeover of the mosque by radicals, only to be ignored.)
If the population of a country – any country – doubts the prospect of a fair trial, they will have no motivation to submit to it. And if they have no respect for the law, a perception that it upholds the rights of the criminal over the rights of the victims, they will see no reason to support it. And that will prove fatal to society.
Right now, in Britain, there is a perception that certain classes of society can literally get away with murder. (This may or may not be true. The point is that a great many people believe it to be true.) Immigrants, for example, have often stalled deportation procedures for months or years, often taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights (and thus drawing the ECHR into disrepute). Ethnic minorities have been allowed to practice illegal cultural practices (arranged marriages) without much impediment. Religious extremists have been allowed to spread hatred, or go abroad to fight in enemy forces (the Islamic State of Iraq, for example.)
True or not, it threatens the underpinnings of society and breeds hatred.
***
With that in mind, how might we proceed to mend the damage to our law enforcement system?
First, we might as well redefine criminal acts. I would suggest borrowing a modified form of Heinlein’s definition – ‘a criminal act is an act that harms non-consenting people (or has a strong possibility of harming people),’ with an assumption that children are never able to give consent. Homosexuality between consenting adults, for example, should not be considered a crime.
Second, we should insist on a right to trial by jury for all criminal acts. If necessary, jurors should sign the Official Secrets Act (in the UK) if cases include secret evidence that should not be made public. The jury should have the final say on the verdict, including the (declared) ability to dismiss the case at any point. They will therefore be able to make a more balanced decision than anyone else.
Third, sentences should be handed down as specified, with no time off for good behaviour (or immediate deportation if the suspect is a foreigner/immigrant). Certain crimes should result in permanent incarceration or the death penalty – serial killers, child molesters and terrorists. The idea is to prevent them causing further harm, not tend to their rights.
Fourth, police officers (or other law enforcement agents) accused of misbehaviour against the public are to be called to face a jury composed of members of the public. They will have a chance to present their defence and explain why they acted in the manner they did. If found guilty, they will be instantly dismissed from the police force and tried under the same conditions as civilians.
Fifth, politicians, reporters and celebrities are to be barred from commenting, speculating or otherwise attempting to influence the outcome of the trial. The bare facts are one thing, slanting the narrative is quite another. The Zimmerman trial was threatened by conflicting narratives established by both sides of the case, which would have almost certainly led to a retrial if the defence had lost.
Sixth, laws should be used for their intended purposes only. Laws for dealing with terrorists should not be used for other purposes, as they weaken faith in the laws themselves.
I do not know if these ideas are enough to start repairing the damage we have done, in the interests of liberalism and political correctness, but the problem is growing acute. Law and order are the foundations of our society – and they’re starting to crumble. I don’t think we will like it when they collapse for good.
Christopher G. Nuttall
2014
About the Author
Christopher Nuttall is the author of 34 books on kindle and 10 books through small presses. He currently moves between Britain and Malaysia with his wife Aisha and a colossal collection of books. Follow his blog or facebook page for updates, special offers, snippets and more.
Website: http://www.chrishanger.net/
&
nbsp; Blog: http://chrishanger.wordpress.com/
Facebook Fan Page: https://www.facebook.com/ChristopherGNuttall
The Thin Blue Line (The Empire's Corps Book 9) (v5.1) Page 40
