The Burglar's Gamble

Last week the Sentencing Council published a new consultation on the sentencing regime applicable to offences of burglary. The consultation invited responses on the Council's proposals to increase sentences depending on the consequences of the burglary, particularly the actual harm inflicted on the victim. Sir Brian Leveson, Chairman of the Council, summed up the new approach by stating that it would ensure 'that the impact on victims is at the centre of considerations about what sentence should be passed on a burglar.'

The Council's latest intervention represents a continuation in thinking in criminal justice policy apparent over the last 10 years with victims placed at the forefront of political rhetoric. Successive Home Secretaries have hit the airwaves promising to make victims the most important players in the criminal justice system. Much of the reform has been largely symbolic, such as the unenforceable Victims Charter, and victims have gained few new rights despite the political posturing. This suggested change, however, may do more to improve the standing of victims when it comes to the consequences of offending.

Is this really right though? For those of us who would like to see tougher sentences across the board, any change that increases the punishment for people who commit burglary is to be welcomed. However, there are wider considerations that make this a problematic development in the theory of sentencing.

Traditionally, sentencing has concentrated on the culpability of offenders, rather than the actual harm caused. This is why attempted murder is treated largely the same as murder itself. Society recognises that failing to commit an offence - whether by luck or bad judgment - does not extinguish the offender's culpability. That person is as morally responsible as if he had succeeded in committing the crime.

Applying these principles, the sentence for a burglar should be the same whether or not his victims are upstairs asleep, downstairs watching TV, or out of the house. The burglar's act and mental state are the same in each case. The presence or absence of any victim is a matter of simple luck. Under the Council's new proposals, however, a burglar who frightens victims inside a house will receive a markedly longer sentence than a burglar who has the happy fortune of finding his house unoccupied.

This reflects a general trend towards compensating victims for harm caused. I once witnessed a case where a drunk driver drove from Cambridge to Huntingdon as high as a kite, swerving around moving vehicles, riding the kerb, and driving over roundabouts. Amazingly, his tripped out journey resulted in no casualties or damage. As a result he was given a suspended sentence. Just imagine the sentence he would have received had he hit a child. What would be the principled difference? His culpability would be the same in both cases and sentencing ought to recognise this.

While I am always satisfied, therefore, to hear about offenders being dealt with more severely, I have a profound objection to the current obsession with consequence rather than culpability. I see no reason why a burglar who finds his victim in the house should face different treatment to the burglar who guesses right and discovers an empty house. Both are serious acts warranting significant punishment. To punish one but not the other is a bizarre social choice.

Opening Up a Can of Worms

The news that Osama Bin Laden has been killed by US Special Forces in a fire fight in a Pakistani town will be greeted by celebrations across the Western world. Already reports are emerging of Americans donning 'we got him' T-shirts and waving the stars and stripes. I must confess that I'm not in such a celebratory mood for the following reasons.

Firstly, if the West is to prevail in the war against terror, it is essential that it retains some form of moral legitimacy. The sight of Americans and Europeans dancing around the camp fire after the murder of a Muslim in a Muslim country is not likely to go down too well with those already contemplating embracing radical Islam. Wouldn't it be better if we demonstrated quiet dignity in moments like these? Western moral standing, already weakened by Iraq, cannot afford to suffer such damage.

Secondly, there is a very real chance of revenge attacks. Many people have been questioning for years the extent to which Bin Laden really controls Al-Qaeda. According to some observers, his death is unlikely to have much of a disruptive influence on the planning of Al-Qaeda in Asia and the West. The closed cell nature of Al-Qaeda's operations, where only a few operatives know the nature of what they are working on, means that the loss of one person is not likely to be terminal. What it will do, however, is lead to massive calls for revenge attacks in Islamist circles.

Thirdly, the circumstances of Bin Laden's death raise important questions about Pakistan's role in the war on terror. Bin Laden was killed in a town not far from Islamabad, which included an elite military training centre of the Pakistani military. This is a far cry from the remote border caves in which he has supposedly been hiding for years. How the Pakistani intelligence and armed forces can not have known about this is a matter for speculation. How long has Bin Laden been in Pakistan? These questions will be repeated by those already critical of Pakistan's reluctance to fully engage with radical elements in its population.

I'm not so sure that making Osama Bin Laden a martyr was really the best tactical approach to adopt in the war on terror. Regardless of its strategic implications, it makes me upset to see that people in the West cannot rise above celebrating the murder of a human being in moments like these, even that of a human being as evil and despicable as Bin Laden. Despite not being a Christian myself, I think those who profess to follow that religion would do well to remember this Proverb: 'Do not rejoice when your enemy falls. And do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles.'

Why I'm Saying No to AV

Blink and you will have missed it. It's almost gone unnoticed amidst the unexpected April sunshine but in just a few weeks we will have the opportunity to change our voting system. As someone who is on the left of politics, sometimes I feel compelled to support 'change' and be 'progressive'. Therefore, I was tempted to throw my support behind the Yes2AV campaign in the name of electoral reform and solidarity with nice people like Charles Kennedy and Caroline Lucas. On closer examination, however, I can't help but feel that the NO2AV folks have the stronger arguments, even though it means agreeing with nasty people like Michael Howard and Matthew Elliott.

Here are the main reasons I'm against the change:

1. AV is harder to understand than FPTP - while clever people like Mr Kennedy and Miss Lucas are clearly able to comprehend the nuances of AV, a lot of people in this country will not. For me, this is the stand out argument against change. Many people find politics boring and incomprehensible as it is. I reckon that a whole lot more will share this opinion if they have to sit down with a calculator to work out why the person who won the most votes in their constituency was not returned as their MP. Those who are discontented with politics are likely to be extremely turned off by a voting system that allows second and third placed candidates to win. This is not a good thing for civic engagement.

2. AV will weaken democratic accountability - my main argument here is that AV will lead to more hung parliaments and hung parliaments are bad for democracy. I'll be honest, this Lib-Con rose garden love-in has put me right off coalitions for life. Putting aside their political views, however, one can see how the mere fact of coalition has weakened trust in politics. During the tuition fee fiasco, it was all too easy for Clegg & Co to retreat to their standard defence of 'we couldn't help it, we're only in coalition' to justify trebling tuition fees after campaigning vociferously to abolish fees outright. I have written before about how stunts like this turn people away from politics. Allowing more hung parliaments will make people really question what is the point of voting when the party they vote for are liable to cave into their coalition partners and renege on their manifesto commitments.

3. AV will elect more fascist MPs - there is a running debate at the moment between the two campaigns about whether the BNP will stand to benefit from AV. Logic dictates that as AV is more favourable to smaller parties (which is why the Lib Dems, the Greens, the nationalists, and UKIP are all in favour), a small party like the BNP will have a greater chance of winning a seat. In particular, they are highly likely to take second and third preference votes from Labour in deprived areas. Whether or not AV does benefit the BNP and other extremist parties remains to be seen. What I do know, however, is that FPTP is no friend of fascists, with the BNP getting nowhere near winning any seat in UK general elections. When it comes to European elections, which are held under proportional representation, however, Nick Griffin and another one of his cronies were elected to represent our nation.

4. It gives the Liberal Democrats too much power - OK, I'll admit that this objection is partly based on my utter repulsion to the Lib Dems. Sorry. But there is a serious point here: if AV were used, there is a very real chance that the leader of this party would wield tremendous influence in deciding which government is formed after a general election. The Lib Dems have too few seats to be in a position where they could govern in their own right. They have just enough seats, though, to hold the balance when Labour and the Conservatives are tied. The more seats they gain, the more frequent compromises like last summer are likely to become. I'm not sure it's healthy to place such a large amount of political power in the hands of one man. Especially where that man is a little weasel like Nick Clegg.

So I urge my friends on the left to resist the temptation to play in the sunshine with Ed Miliband and Simon Hughes and invite them to join the real voices of fairness, William Hague and Norman Tebbit. Strange as it may seem, the only way of securing civic engagement, moderation and accountability is to vote no to AV. If not, Nick Clegg can look forward to a glorious future as the perpetual king maker of British politics.

Pain But No Gain

Today over 250,000 protesters descended on London. Their aim was to vent their anger at the Government's programme of dramatic spending cuts. Workers from all the main trade unions, students, and supporters came together to march against the coalition's plan to eliminate the entire structural deficit in just four years.

For some the grievances expressed today will be seen as the manifestation of an unreasonable sense of entitlement that has developed in the last few years. Public sector workers, they would say, must be turfed out as part of a fundamental economic re-structuring after years of dependence on the state. Many pro-cuts figures also reach for the statistics for how much the government spends on servicing debt interest in order to justify the government's cuts agenda.

Observing the protest at close quarters, it was clear to me that some of the marchers were in absolute denial about the need to reduce the fiscal deficit. Some people had banners calling for there to be no cuts at all. Others tried to explain their position by highlighting the amount spent on trident and the sums lost through tax avoidance. I would say, however, that the majority of people in attendance accepted the need for spending reductions. Their criticism would be that the coalition are going about it too far and too fast.

This is a position that has been advocated by the last two Nobel prize winners for economics. Leading economists on both sides of the Atlantic have argued that cutting back state support while the recovery remains fragile risks plunging us back into recession. The basic premise is that making more people unemployed through public sector redundancies will dampen demand in the economy. This will make it more difficult for firms to grow and it will harm business confidence. Those people who lose their job in the public sector are unlikely to be absorbed by the private sector given the perilous state of the economy.

It is in this context that the Chancellor produced his 'budget for growth' on Wednesday. The budget statement began with Mr Osborne downgrading his growth forecasts, blaming it largely on last year's snow and global instability. Afterwards, he pledged to cut corporation tax and tax on fuel (although this was clearly a political red herring as he increased VAT on fuel only a matter of months ago).

Until the recovery is in full-swing, these measures will be like moving deckchairs on the Titanic as long as they are accompanied by the government's cuts programme. I have never heard a convincing argument as to why the entire deficit has to be eliminated in four years. Why not 5? Or 6? Or 10? The markets will back a plan they view to be credible. This does not mean the deficit reduction plan has to be the most aggressive one available.

Surely the best plan is one that commits to deficit reduction but recognises the need for basic economic stability. The goal must be to put the economy back into a position where it can support people who lose their jobs in the public sector. Putting more people on the dole when the recovery is fragile just appears reckless to me. It seems like ideological nonsense spouted by a government that is obsessed with re-balancing the economy away from reliance on the state, whatever the consequences.

I hope that Mr Osborne listens to the concerns of ordinary people (and it was, by and large, ordinary people: families and all generations) put forward today about the dangers of his policy. Failing that, I hope he listens to the Nobel laureates and leading economists who have warned about the need for growth before there can be cuts. If he continues on his current course he may find that his obsession with deficit reduction leads to years of financial stagnation.

When Would You Pull The Trigger?

Thanks to the Inner Temple (easily the best of the four Inns of Court, incidentally, for any aspiring barristers) today I was able to gain a rare insight into how the police train with and use firearms. I visited the Metropolitan Police Specialist Training Centre down in Kent where I was shown the training officers go through and given the chance to step into their shoes by participating in simulated exercises.

Like many people, before the trip I regarded the police as somewhat trigger happy when given the chance to run around with guns. Having read about cases like the de Menezes debacle, and more recently the murky shooting of barrister Mark Saunders, it's fair to say I didn't have a great deal of faith in the police's ability to exercise restraint.

My pre-conceptions were turned on their head by some of the things I learned. Firstly, the police instructors demonstrated the rigorous testing firearms officers have to undertake in order to carry a gun and the equally demanding re-accreditation programme they must pass each year in order to maintain their license. The officers are all required to hit moving targets from large distances with all kinds of weapon, including pistols, and to do so with 80% accuracy. Some of the more specialist guys are required to hit targets in combat situations, being fired at and challenged by difficult circumstances. To think that cops in the US and most other countries carry guns as of right is unbelievable in comparison to the high standards of assessment UK officers are expected to meet. It certainly made me feel a new found sense of confidence in the Met's ability to handle firearms incidents.

Secondly, all the officers are put through a series of simulated firearms scenarios. These will involve situations like high-school shootings and domestic violence. The officers are examined on when they choose to fire and why. You might think this is relatively simple; surely they shoot the bad guys, and only when they are being shot at first? Well having taken part myself, I can assure you it's not so easy. I found that I was the most trigger-happy of the group, prepared to fire whenever I saw a person with a weapon.

Cases like the Stockwell shooting and the Saunders tragedy will be scrutinised by the media and the courts for years after the event. Experts will assess whether the officers made the right decision. Sometimes, inevitably, they will get it wrong. But when you have literally split-seconds to make hugely complicated judgment calls, you do not have the benefit of careful, considered analysis. You have to do what you think is right there and then, often on the basis of incomplete information. After taking part in some fake exercises with no real sense of pressure, I certainly will think twice before criticising the police for making mistakes in these situations.

Take the de Menezes case. Clearly there were serious flaws in the intelligence, which the Met has rightly been chastised for. Can anyone really blame the officers that fired though? They saw a man running into a Tube station days after the worst terrorist attack in recent British history. They had reason to believe that he was a suicide bomber, intent on blowing up the tube. Should they have (a) waited and done nothing; (b) shot him or engaged him in a non-fatal way; or (c) shot him in the head?

Obviously, with the benefit of hindsight, option (a) was the right choice. That is easy for us now, six years after the event following a number of investigations. It wasn't so obvious to the officers at the time. They genuinely believed they had to disable a man in order to prevent him killing scores of men, women, and children. Those officers did not have the time to enter into such considered analysis.

If anyone disputes my point of view and believes that firearms officers should always know when to hold their fire, I challenge them to go down to Kent and take part in the simulation. They may just find that they are surprised by how eager they are to pull the trigger.

Is It Always Wrong to Ask?

The star of The Apprentice and Labour Party Peer, Lord Sugar, this week argued that employers should be allowed to ask prospective employees whether or not they plan to have children. This produced a storm of protest from feminists and successful women everywhere, who immediately branded Lord Sugar's view as unfair and unreasonable. Despite the law prohibiting employers questioning any potential employee about their childcare commitments, it is widely assumed that the candidates who would be asked this question most often would be female.

Lord Sugar justified his statement by pointing to the problems businesses (particularly small businesses) encounter when they hire women who then take maternity leave shortly after starting work. Running a small business would undoubtedly become more difficult when a significant part of the workforce chooses to leave with no guarantee of them coming back in the near future. The problems are surely more pressing given the dire economic climate in which small firms are required to operate.

Despite this, women are understandably worried about being asked such an intrusive and personal question. Many people would regard childcare to be a private matter and none of the employer's business. In addition, there is a fear that a person could be discriminated against merely for wishing to fulfil a human desire to raise children.

These objections are misguided, however. If a person is trying to run a business with four members of staff, they surely have a legitimate interest in wishing to know the time commitments of their employees. It's exactly the same as an employer asking whether they wish to take time out for any other reason, e.g. further study or holidays. The fact is that many businesses would simply fold if a key member of staff was absent for an extended period of time. Owners cannot be expected to gamble with recruitment in these situations.

Moreover, women surely encounter more discrimination under the present system. As Lord Sugar said, the fact that employers are not allowed to ask means that many simply fail to recruit as many women as they would otherwise do. If a woman says, 'I have absolutely no interest in having children in the immediate future', she would be in a more advantageous position than under the status quo, where the employer is none the wiser about her future plans. If she says 'Yes I wish to have children in the immediate future' then it's only fair for the employer to know this. There may be absolutely no issue, for example where it has been agreed that the woman's partner will take care of the children.

So rather than undermining female participation in the workplace, allowing employers to question prospective employees about their childcare commitments may actually enhance gender equality in this country. That would be a good thing for society in general but also for British business. Perhaps we should get away from this (forgive the pun) childish law that prevents employers talking to prospective employees about their ability to work for them.

The Big Society - Not Just a Harmless Gimmick

Every Government likes to have some sort of underlying theme. The motivation behind Margaret Thatcher's administration was always economic liberalism and the maximisation of individual freedom, even at the expense of social cohesion. Tony Blair wanted to govern from the 'radical centre' with the idea of making public services better by opening them up to competition and market forces. The central policy direction of this Government is undoubtedly David Cameron's idea of the 'Big Society'.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the 'Big Society' is that no-one really knows what it means. My interpretation of Mr Cameron's speeches is that it seems to refer to an emphasis on volunteer groups and individuals taking over public services. Indeed, one of the key intellectual contributors to the Big Society, Philip Blond, has often spoken of it encompassing worker co-operatives and other mutual means of ownership.

Not many people object to the goals of the Big Society. Everyone would like to see more people volunteering. The bonds of social commitment are inevitably strengthened where people willingly decide to give up their free time to help those less fortunate than themselves. Worker co-operatives would also be supported, especially on the left-of the political spectrum.

So why am I so uneasy about the Big Society?

My problem is that Mr Cameron is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. The Comprehensive Spending Review resulted in a 28% cut in the local government budget. This represents a huge reduction in spending on local services. Councils are under a statutory duty to provide certain essential services, such as education and transport. In addition, many Councils are actively involved in the promotion of other projects, such as youth work and mental health support. They carry out these additional services by receiving modest central government funding. Given the whopping cut in the local government budget, the time is up for these extra facilities. There is simply no way in which a local authority will be able to maintain additional services in addition to their statutory commitments when faced with a 28% cut in funding.

This is why senior charity figures, such as Dame Suzi Leather, Chair of the Charity Commission, and Dame Elisabeth Hoodless, Chair of Community Service Volunteers, have argued so forcefully that Mr Cameron's Big Society agenda is a sham. How on Earth are people going to be able to effectively volunteer if the financial support is not there? For example, as a result of the Government's cuts, many libraries are being forced to close. As Dame Elisabeth asked, how are people supposed to volunteer in the local library if it is being closed down?

These are the uncomfortable questions about the Big Society that Mr Cameron cannot answer. The truth is that his destructive cuts package is wrecking any chance of a genuine culture of volunteering and civic engagement developing in this country.

Conservatives have sought to blame the need for the massive cuts in public spending on the last Labour Government. Here again, therefore, we see the great lie of British politics. I have argued against this before but just in case anyone is any doubt: Labour did not cause the banking crisis. The bankers caused the banking crisis.

The fact of the matter is that before 2007, when the financial meltdown began, Britain had the second lowest debt in the G7. So it's false to say that the Labour Government's reckless overspending created the deficit. Furthermore, up to this point, the Conservatives pledged to match Labour's spending plans. So they didn't think it was reckless overspending either. The other governing party, the Liberal Democrats, were actually in favour of increasing public spending. Any claim by the Government that the deficit is the product of years of Labour indulgence with the public finances is consequently (a) wrong, and (b) hypocritical.

Why did we end up with the largest debt after the financial crisis? The answer is simple. Britain was the most reliant on revenues from the financial services sector in the City of London. When the City went into sharp decline, so unfortunately did the entire British economy. The Government was forced to spend millions bailing out the banks while hundreds of businesses collapsed as a result of being unable to benefit from credit supplied by financial institutions. The Labour Government should take some blame for putting all our economic eggs in one basket by being so dependent on financial services. However, both main parties were to blame for this, none more so than the Tories who began diverting resources towards the City and away from manufacturing in the 1980s.

Mr Cameron is undermining his own Big Society by his massive cuts agenda. His ideological commitment to shrinking the state will always come before his desire to support civic engagement. He is seeking to convince people that he would love to see more volunteers but he has to clean up Labour's mess. Don't believe him.