1 min read
Erwin James, who is out of prison after serving a 'life' sentence (which says all one needs to know about both Mr James and our criminal justice system) had this to say about my Times piece last week: Of all the examples of disingenuous and irresponsible reporting of criminal justice issues, however, one of worst in recent years appeared in an edition of the Times this week. To be labelled irresponsible by the likes of Mr James is indeed a singular achievement.
What surprised me, however, was the overall tone of the comments. I had expected Comment is Free readers to weigh in with him against the idea of punishment for criminals. I could not have been more wrong. Comments such as these are plentiful on the thread: Let's start by ensuring they serve their full time, in a harsh environment with no time off for good behaviour (but double time for poor behaviour). And life means life.
Then we can worry about 'rehabilitation'.
The criminal justice system is not supposed to be a service to the offender. I'm fine with rehabilitation but punishment should be a big part. If someone beats the crap out of me for my wallet and they're caught, I'm happy for them to receive some sort of training that might prevent them re-offending, but I also want them to serve a long, lonely, miserable prison sentence. Call me stupid and barbaric all you want. And then one from someone who, unlike Mr James, appears able to grasp the concept that punishment and rehab can go hand in hand: I have no objection to rehabilitation; I do object to it being used instead of punishment. That I think was Stephen Pollard's point, and one that you do not appear to address. What a huge surprise it is to discover from Mr James that a criminal doesn't like the idea of punishment.