==
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
==
This case is one of many where people have been shocked at the
severity of the sentences passed upon people involved in the riots
here. A friend of mine, a lawyer, has explained the logic behind what
at first sight appear to be draconian sentencing.
'A disturbance of the general peace and widespread disorder is seen in
English Law as akin to rebellion and treason. Read your Hobbes. ...
Consider the disorder in Ealing or Manchester. Stealing a bottle of
water from a shop may not seem serious, and it is not. But if it
contributes to a general atmosphere of violent disorder it is a direct
contribution to the killing of a man in Ealing and three men in
Manchester [sic -- Birmingham -- PF]. That is a serious matter.'
He cited the remarks made by the judge upon sentencing three men and a
woman for participating in the disturbances in Manchester:
'10. Any participation whatsoever of whatever duration in the criminal
activities of that night in Manchester City Centre or in Salford,
irrespective of its precise form, derives its gravity because it was
carried on by one of those who by sheer weight of numbers subjected
the commercial areas to a sustained onslaught of burglary, robbery,
theft, disorder and other related offences. Anyone on the streets that
night who took part in crime added to the effects of the overall
criminality, and hampered the efforts of the Police to bring it under
control, and of the owners and operators of those businesses trying to
protect them.'
My friend continues:
'All jurisdictions have a concept of 'common purpose', 'joint action',
'acting in concert' since it is a feature of offending everywhere. For
example, in English law, if you are present at a street robbery, and
you are aware that your presence as part of a gang has an intimidating
effect on the victim, then you are just as guilty as the person who
actually robbed the person. ... In English Law, you have a common law
duty to quell a riot and to assist the authorities in quelling a riot,
and a duty to immediately absent yourself from one because rioters use
the presence of numbers, and are encouraged by it. So once a Riot Act
warning is read 'all persons found' in the vicinity are deemed
rioters. In the offence of violent disorder you do not need even to
act in concert with anyone -- you just need to be engaging in mayhem
when others are doing so, even if the aims of each offender is
different.'
I think that this point about the obligation upon the public to help
quell a riot is very significant, as if you are a witness to a riot
and, whilst not actually looting or throwing things at the Old Bill,
do not try to prevent disorder -- that is, you just stand there
looking at the events -- you are nonetheless actually under law
considered as a rioter, and liable to arrest and prosecution. The
British state rules out neutrality here!
My friend told me whilst the riots were still in progress that he had
been told that the judiciary had been 'told' to come down very heavily
upon those involved. This has certainly been the case.
Paul F
Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
Set your options at:
http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
