Thread: BNP Policy Debate - Crime and Justice

I think the BNP policy that the death penalty be restored where 'guilt is beyond doubt, like where there is DNA evidence', is misguided. DNA evidence shows interaction between accused and victim. Nothing more.

You need to be very careful about DNA evidence anyway. Read an article recently where poor quality samples and errors in database entry caused significant numbers of matches in a test of DNA databases. Something like 120 matches out of a database of 65,000. Not quite the million to one chance we are lead to believe. This was using techniques for a sample quality equivalent to around 10% of those used in UK court cases.

Strangely the UK and US will not allow scientists access to DNA samples to check that the assumed probability that a DNA sample matches is actually correct.

It's the only reason I am wary of capital punishment - there is always the danger of killing an innocent person...

Originally Posted by Britt Andrew Prowd

The official BNP policy on crime and justice is:

- Free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket which is stopping them from doing their jobs properly;

I want a specific example of what this 'politically correct straightjacket' is and I want to know how exacty it prevents them from doing their job properly. They need to give examples.

Originally Posted by Britt Andrew Prowd

- End the liberal fixation with the “rights” of criminals and replace it with concern for the rights of victims – and the right of innocent people not to become victims;

what 'rights of criminals' do they mean? The right to a fair trial, the right to legal representation? They need to give examples

Originally Posted by Britt Andrew Prowd

The official BNP policy on crime and justice is:

- Free the police and courts from the politically correct straitjacket which is stopping them from doing their jobs properly;

Nice soundbite. Not sure what it means.

- End the liberal fixation with the “rights” of criminals and replace it with concern for the rights of victims – and the right of innocent people not to become victims;

There is no "fixation with the rights of criminals." There is a fixation with the rights of suspects. Suspects are not legally criminals, because, in the eyes of the law, everybody is innocent of any crime until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Given, then, that all of us are innocent before the law until found guilty, the rights of suspects are the rights of any of us. Ending a "fixation with the rights of" suspects, then, is ending a fixation with the rights of everybody not convicted of some crime or another.

- Re-introduce corporal punishment for petty criminals and vandals;

- Restore capital punishment for paedophiles, terrorists and murderers as an option for judges in cases where their guilt is proven beyond dispute (such as with DNA or other compelling evidence).

Firstly, there have been examples of cases apparently won by DNA evidence whose convictions have been later overturned.

Secondly, if the penalty for being a peadophile (which means, what? A paedophile is someone sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. Merely having a sexual attraction harms nobody, and so criminalising it means criminalising people for simply thinking certain thoughts. How they act on that attraction is surely what matters. Lets assume that we are talking about somebody actually molesting a child here) is the same as the penalty for being a murderer, then the deterrent against a child molester killing his or her victim is no greater than the deterrent against merely molesting that victim, right? So why would any rational child molester choose not to kill their victim if the penalty is the same as if they don't? Especially if killing the victim is the best way of hiding the crime?

The BNP would also:

- Make prisons more austere and make criminals serve their full sentences. Offenders will be made to understand that they are being punished and not rewarded with a state-subsidised holiday for their crimes;

- Use electronically tagged “chain gangs” to provide labour for projects such as coastal defences;

I would rather that restitution to the victim or their family were the first option, and punishment the second. Restitution has proved very effective at reducing crime rates in, say, Japan. Of course, a criminal unable to pay restitution immediately would have to work off that debt, undersupervision (the cost of which should be added to the debt).

- Introduce automatic prison sentences for all repeat offenders;

- Put police back on the streets and remove their current political correctness shackles;

- Allow victims of crime full freedom to defend themselves and their property;

- Make joint custody of children the norm in divorce cases;

- Grant anonymity to those accused of crimes until they are convicted;

Hmmmm, and you were worried about "the rights of criminals"?! If I find out that person X is accused of a crime, then, since I have a right to freedom of speech, following from my rights as an owner of myself and other things, I have a right to publicly announce that fact if I want.

- Make police concentrate on real criminals and serve the public, not the government’s political aspirations.

Again, a good soundbite, but pretty meaningless. The LPUK's policy of elected local chief constables would be a better step in this direction. Allowing people to hire or subscribe the police force of their choice, in a system with completely free entry would be even better.

Originally Posted by Britt Andrew Prowd

Again for the record. I oppose capital punishment.

Fair enough. I was responding more to the policy proposal rather than your own positions.

Although atrocious, paedophiles haven't denied someone their right to live. Murderers have.

Believe me, paedophiles DO deny people the right to life, because they destroy children's innocence and in many cases leave them empty shells with no chance of ever being in a normal loving relationship. "Ron" is absolutely correct and in my opinion execution is nothing more than they truly deserve !!!