Shane Greer and the limit of restorative justice

Referring to the murder of Sophie Lancaster, Shane Greer comments that,

Sophie was killed because she dressed a certain way, and one day her killers will go free and unhindered; where is the justice in that?

Justice has been done because Miss Lancaster’s killers have been convicted. If the law decides that they may be freed after a set period, this is not a matter of justice no longer being done so much as it is matter of mercy being applied.

Mr Greer states that,

Many times in the past I have argued in favour of restorative justice, but I’m afraid when it comes to murder of the kind in this case there is no place for anything other than a sentence of life (where life means life).

Life sentences given without the possibility of parole is the application of justice without mercy. And justice without mercy is a vindictive form of justice.

Life without parole sentences may as well be death penalties because they give up on the prisoner; they tell him that in the eyes of society he has no ability to reform and must therefore remain behind bars all his days on account of this.

But no one is beyond reforming – not the killers of Sophie Lancaster, or the most evil dictators of the past and present, or anyone in between. And society, rather than wishing to jail people for all their lives, should simply be determined to – if it is possible - reform them. For what would be a more powerful statement regarding the wickedness and futility of murder: a forgotten man in prison for fifty years for his crime or the man who has been helped during his period inside and is now able to say sorry and testify to the ruinous nature of his crime?

Computer Game Ratings

BBC Breakfast reported on Dr Tanya Byron’s recommendation that computer games be more comprehensively rated with a headline that ratings should be introduced to stop children becoming desensitised to violence.

I should like to know how that might happen! I do try to be optimistic in life, but I doubt very much that once he has the game in his possession, the teenager spends very much time thinking about how seriously to take the game based upon its rating.

Thankfully, BBC On-Line has a  better (though admittedly duller) headline to go with the story.

Brown’s Empty Compromise and other matters

A brief digest from BBC On-Line.

Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill

Gordon Brown has decided that Labour M.Ps will be able to vote with their consciences, after all. Kind of. Private Eye’s Supreme Leader’ has decreed that his M.Ps can have a free vote for certain elements of the Bill. However, M.Ps will still be expected to vote for the whole Bill when it comes before the Commons. This, to my mind, makes the compromise a rather empty one. the Prime Minister is still an ally of the utilitarian secularists who believe in nothing and will do anything to achieve ‘progress’. 

Tougher Sentences for Gun Crime

In its Have Your Say column, the BBC writes,

A top UK police officer says judges don’t always hand out the mandatory five year sentence for carrying a gun. Could tougher sentences be a deterrent?

No, they won’t be. The gallows never stopped murders being committed. Tougher sentences will never stop those who wish to from carrying a gun. We will never solve the problem of crime until we realise that the retributive way of dealing with criminals is not the way forward. They need help. The system should geared towards helping them to be penitential. And if they commit a crime again, they should be helped again. And again.

Sarkozy to Boycott Beijing?

After sweeping to power in the French Presidential elections last year, Nicolas Sarkozy’s star has fallen of late following gains for the Socialist party in Parliamentary elections. However, he can only be congratulated if he does choose to boycott the Opening Ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. China does not deserve the Olympics. That they are going there is a disgrace and encouragement to the Communist regime. The counter argument here is that the Games will help China open up. Maybe it will, but I don’t hear anyone say that the Moscow Games helped the Soviet Union to ‘open up’.

More on the Tories and the Unions

Further to yesterday’s post on the appointment of Mr David Balfe as David Cameron’s envoy to the unions, Conservative Home has published an article by Mr Balfe on the relationship between the Conservative Party and trade unions. He begins,

One day soon there is going to be a Conservative Government. That’s the way things happen in democracies. This incoming Government and the Unions, particularly in the public sector, need to get to know each other and appreciate our differences whilst at the same time recognising our joint desire to build an economically sound and strong Britain with first class public services.

Read the full article here.

Being A Union Member – and a Tory Sympathiser

Just over a year ago, I joined my workplace union. I was not fired by any left wing principle, rather pragmatism. I have an excellent employer, but if anything should ever go wrong with them, it occurred to me that it might actually be a good idea to have a support system to help me out.

Since then, in for a penny and in for a pound as they say, and in the belief that it is good to help out, I have become a Union Rep.

We all recall Gordon Brown’s non-election as leader of the Labour Party last summer. But there was, of course, an election for deputy-leader. As a union member, I was entitled to vote for one of the candidates. However, and despite the fact that I am a member of my union’s political fund – meaning that I pay a contribution to Labour – I felt that I could not do so on the grounds that my political views are, generally speaking, right-of-centre.

But having grown up a witness to the dying cries of the power of the Trade Union movement through the miners’ strike in the 80s, it was my impression that the Conservative Party had nothing at all to do with unions. Unfortunate. Surely, so much could be achieved by the two sides engaging with each other – not necessarily agreeing, but at least talking.

So, I was very pleased to read on Conservative Home yesterday about the appointment of Mr David Balfe as ‘David Cameron’s personal envoy to the trade union movement’.

Conservative Home cites the following statement, made by Mr Balfe and quoted by The Independent,

“Around 30 per cent of trade union members vote Conservative, and under David Cameron’s leadership the Conservative Party has shown that it has the ideas and vision to harness the co-operative movement in a way that can really benefit society. I want to show that we in the Conservative Party want to listen to and learn from these two valuable partners in society.”

I hope very much that the unions are open minded enough to listen to Mr Balfe.

For my part, Conservative Home has indirectly reminded of the Catholic Church’s own Social Doctrine. It began with the encyclical Rerum Novarum, published by Pope Leo XIII in 1891, and is all about the right of the workers to form unions. Successive popes since have written ‘update’ encyclicals about this matter.

At a union meeting not long ago, we were asked why we got involved. I said that if it was good enough for the popes, it was good enough for me. Perhaps unsurprisingly, no one knew about Rerum  et al. As time allows, I shall return to it. The Catholic Church’s Social Doctrine is the Cinderella doctrine of the Church and really deserves to be more widely heard.

John Redwood On Easter

John Redwood M.P. writes about the meaning (or possible meanings) of the Easter Egg. I do not know whether Mr Redwood is a Christian or not, but it is interesting and gratifying to see him write about Easter – both in terms of these things which, while pleasurable, are at its periphery and the story which is its very reason for being.

Interesting and gratifying. Why so? Well, while it is currently very easy for Catholics to attack the Labour Government for some of its policies, one can’t pretend that if – or, as things are going, as and when the Conservatives return to power – they will not put forward bills which Catholics will disagree with.

And when that happens, do we lose hope in all politicians? Not at all, thanks to blog posts like Mr Redwood’s we remember that though we disagree – perhaps vehemently – with what they are advocating we are able to trust that they are acting in good faith because in the past they have taken the time to engage with the Christian faith.

In respect of the Embryology Bill, that for me is Gordon Brown’s big problem. When did he last engage with the faith? I know very well that he is a ‘son of the manse’, but I know nothing of his adult views.

If only I knew a little more; while I would still disagree with Mr Brown about the Embryology Bill, it would be easier to understand his line of thinking. Instead, I see only a dark and discredited secular ideology driving this bill forward.

Lord Winston’s Valuable Contribution

Lord Winston steps into the row over the Government’s Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill. Criticising Cardinal O’Brien’, he says that the Catholic Church,

“[is] playing on fears which are just not justified. These cells are destroyed after a short period and they should leave science to the scientists because the Catholic Church has not got a good record in denouncing medical advances.

“If they care about the sanctity of life they should want human life protected and they should want some of these horrendous diseases eradicated.”

Firstly, if he thinks that the Embryology Bill is justified because the cells used live only for a short time (14 days maximum), then he is missing the point of the Church’s objection. As I stated in my earlier post, the Catholic Church takes a different view to Secularists (although Lord Winston is an Orthodox Jew?) in respect of when life begins.

Secondly, so the Church should leave science to the scientists. Yes, of course it should; but surely his Lordship is not so naif to believe that science does not have an ethical and spiritual dimension. If science should be left to scientists, then consideration of those factors should be left to ethicists and theologians. Of which, Lord Winston is neither.

Thirdly, I am glad to hear that the Catholic Church does not have a good record in denouncing medical advances. Presumably, therefore, it is better at lauding them. But perhaps Lord Winston means quite the reverse. The Catholic Church need bow to no one when it comes to medicine. Show me an occasion when she has wrongly denounced a medical advance and I will show you an occasion on which she has furthered the cause of medicine.

Fourthly, finally, if only Lord Winston cared about human life as much as the Church does. Sadly, he is as tied to his own orthodoxy as he believes the Church to be and it leads him to waste his time and others with nonsense comments that advance the debate not a whit. 

Labour’s Idea of a Free Vote

BBC On-Line reports that Gordon Brown is preparing to allow (Catholic) Labour M.Ps to vote against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Good news?

Not really. The BBC cites a Government spokesman as saying “[t]he votes would be permitted only if they did not threaten the passage of the bill.”

In February, I watched a news report of the Russian Presidential election campaign. The election itself was still a few weeks off, but the reporter still said, “When Dmitry Medvedev is elected – it’s that kind of election – …”

Democracy under Gordon Brown looks like it is turning into that kind of democracy. Vote against me if you wish – just as long as I still win… Labour M.Ps cannot be pleased with this patronising and dictatorial stance. What Brown has done in respect of the Embryology Bill today, he may do in regards any other bill in the future. 

If they value their vote, Labour M.Ps should stand up to Mr Brown and tell him this: he may be the prime minister but he is still only first among equals and the servant of his people and the country.   

Stand Up and Be Counted

H/T to the Hermeneutic of Continuity for this blog dedicated to examining the iniquitous Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill.

The HFE Bill: Some Responses

Further to yesterday’s post on the Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I note that Holy Smoke and CentreRight both have posts on the subject. The CentreRight article is of particular interest as it is written by Louise Bagshawe, a Catholic and prospective (Conservative) parliamentary candidate. She notes that the Tories do not whip conscience votes – what the Labour leadership is attempting to do with its Catholic M.Ps. I am glad that that is so. Given that neither Conservative or Labour Party hold policies that can be completely acceptable to Catholics, it could be the difference between choosing to vote or giving up altogether on the whole wasteful process.