Letter: Fight against crime
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Measures in the Queen's Speech cause us concern, but the three that cause us the most are those which will further erode the rights and safeguards for those caught up in the criminal justice system.
The right to jury trial is a crucial safeguard at the heart of criminal justice. It ensures that the individual is judged by fellow citizens, not the state's appointed representatives. The Government's proposal to restrict this precious right as a cost-cutting exercise just as the Human Rights Act is due to come into force is too great an irony to bear.
Although details are unclear, the Government seems to be proposing to give the police powers to forcibly drug test anyone they've arrested. It is debatable whether, in practice, this will be confined to persistent offenders who steal to feed their habit, or whether the powers might find a wider application. But even if confined to the target group, blood and urine testing is necessarily intrusive. Greater coercive measures may get more people on to woefully under-funded treatment programmes, but coercion will never provide the motivation necessary for a successful treatment outcome.
If the terrorism measures go through, then individuals suspected of terrorist offences would have fewer rights than other criminals. It is wrong in principle to have a twin-track criminal justice system. It is also difficult to accept that those motivated by political or religious factors when they commit crimes should be penalised more heavily than those who commit crimes for greed or revenge or in anger. The anti-terrorism laws have led to some of the worst human rights abuses in this country over the last 25 years, contributed to miscarriages of justice and led to the unnecessary detention of thousands of innocent people, most of them Irish.
Contrary to what the Government repeatedly tells us, the erosion of individual rights is not an approach which is genuinely tough on either crime or, more importantly, on its causes. It is a pale substitute for the political imagination which the real solutions would require.
JOHN WADHAM
Director
Liberty
London SE1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments