Reform our constitution and criminal justice system before we end up in a police state
“Our prisons are full because we lock up too many people. Our criminal justice system is based on creating fear not justice and liberty.”
If you would like to comment on a particular block, click on the pale blue bar to the left of the text. If you would like to view the comments on a particular block, click on the speech balloon.
2. How does it fit with Compass’ core beliefs of equality, solidarity, democracy, freedom, sustainability and well being?
A police state is not just one run by police. It is where the state cannot be held accountable for its actions and abuses, where the laws of the land are arbitrary, the burden of proof low, and where laws are framed so vaguely and ambiguously that no-one is safe from prosecution. How can people be expected to obey the law if they are not allowed or expected to understand it, or that law is perverse or illogical? These problems stem from our parliamentary process which allows MPs to pass any arbitrary law they wish.
3. How does it build the institutions of social democracy, like social groups and collective and cooperative forms of ownership and control?
Liberty can only exist if MPs are restricted in the illiberal laws they can pass by constitutional safeguards. Common ownership and control of the justice system can only occur if members of the public can participate in local policing. All individuals should be granted powers of arrest and temporary detention (for a few hours maximum), not just the police. At present citizens’ arrest powers are unworkable as the citizen can be charged with assault or false imprisonment for exercising them. Police powers outside the police station should be the same as those of the ordinary citizen.
4. How much will it cost or raise and where will any cost come from?
All individuals should be granted ownership of their personal data and DNA profile as it is their copyright, and their intellectual property. If companies or institutions misuse it, the owner should be able to sue for damages. That would reduce unauthorised data use or loss. Information databases are legitimate tools in fighting crime, but only if the data is used properly and securely. This can only happen if there are criminal and financial consequences for misuse, otherwise data will be leaked for political smearing or financial gain.
5. Which groups in the electorate are likely to support or oppose this measure? Is there any polling evidence you have on this?
These measures will be opposed by all on the authoritarian right and left. Many MPs appear to believe in their own infallibility and omnipotence. They cannot accept that the laws that they pass might be unworkable or unjust. They believe it is their right to dictate morality to the rest of society. Their hubris means they cease acting as the servants of the people, but instead act as our masters. The result is the Nanny State.
6. Is there a place or country where it’s worked? Please provide some information.
Most countries with written constitutions have better safeguards than we do.
7. What are the three main arguments in favour/against it?
Curiosity and knowledge should not be criminal offences. The next step would be book burning. Justice should be blind. The same for all. It should not seek to make examples of people based on status or notoriety. That is discrimination and persecution. People should be judged solely for what they have done based on the harm they cause to others. Intent must be proven or we risk legalising entrapment. These principles should be enshrined in a Bill of rights and constitution. It is not the right of governments or parliament to criminalise people based on their morals or lifestyle.
The default "Block" is always the title block for the post, that is where general comments are posted:
To comment on any "Block" within a post, click on the comments bar next to that block:
To view comments about a "Block" within a post, click on the yellow comment indicator next to that block:
Leave a Reply