|
Obviously the practical means of doing so lies in the hands of the police force, para-military anti-riot forces, and, in the last resort, the armed forces themselves. In democratic countries, these are firmly
under the control of civilian governments, the members of which are freely elected.
Governments legislate and judiciaries administer the law. However, the degree of control over the
individual and the nature of the sanctions to be applied depend partly on the traditions of the country
concerned and partly on the seriousness of the law and order problems which the country faces.
What are today's problems? Political protest, leading to strikes, street demonstrations, physical
violence, use of arms and weapons, mob violence and vandalism, looting, and in extreme cases, civil
war. Football violence, such as has recently excluded England from matches in Europe. Crime against
the person and against property e.g. murder, rape, theft, burglary and vandalism. These evils spread
from country to country by imitation through international media publicity. Paradoxically, they also
spread when law and order sanctions are either tightened or relaxed. This dilemma faces Mr. Gorbachev
precisely because of glasnost and perestroika, particularly insofar as political unrest spreads through
the Soviets and Russia's satellite neighbors.
So the distinction between personal and political motivation behind
lawlessness must be made. Where the motivation is personal, i.e. based in
natural violence, social resentment due perhaps to deprivation, greed, sexual
amorality, hatred or drug-induced mental states, then sanctions must be
toughened as required. There are arguments for and against the death penalty,
but there is little doubt that it provides an effective deterrent. There are
arguments against physical punishments, but they also deter. English law
provides severer penalties for offences against property than against the
person. In view of the muggings, street and public transport violence experienced today, this must be reversed.
The modish, liberal explanation of the increase of such crime is that society
rejects the poor and underprivileged. Rebuild slum areas and offer more
government handouts and crime would disappear . This is nonsense. What is
society but a collection of individuals? Every individual is endowed with
personal choice. The individual must be made to choose the law and order path.
Religion and morality must be instilled into children in the home, in the school
and in the workplace. Some form of compulsory national service of a non-military nature would benefit young adults of all racial origins and
of both sexes.
The more difficult question is that of offence against law and order when the motivation is truly
political. Do citizens owe a duty to support and preserve the established order in return for the benefits
they receive from it? If not, at what point does the freedom fighter become the terrorist? At what point
in a democracy does the legitimate lobby become the violent, chanting, vociferous and sometimes
blackmailing pressure group? The answers must of course depend on the political stance of the individual.
Again however the distinction between political and personal motivation must be clearly made. In Ireland,
religion and politics are used as a cover for common criminality. In South Africa, the motivation behind
violence is often tribal rivalry or the instinct to loot,
pillage and murder.
The justification for using the sanctions already mentioned in order to maintain law and order when
offences are political lies in the quality of any country's government. Where there is democracy, where
there is a multi-party system, where the legal system is fair, where human rights including that of free
speech within the law are preserved, there lies the justification. When these things are denied then there
can be a case for resistance, even revolution.
Yet, underlying the spread of common criminality is the flight from religion and morality and the
weakening of the family system. Much youth delinquency could be pre-empted by discipline in the home,
school and work-place, always provided the motivation behind such discipline is affection and the true
well-being of the young person.
|
