Clear Full Forecast

Queens Peace

By Submitted Article

Sunday, October 04, 2009 04:09 AM

by Justice Wallace Gilby Craig, ( retired)

Until the 1970s Canada’s criminal justice system enforced the criminal law to the extent that law-abiding Canadians had a reasonable expectation of personal safety while going about in public.
 
Then, successive federal governments chose to pursue the salvation of offenders at great cost to the protection of society. Gullible politicos turned punishment into rehabilitation and demonstrated, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that impunity increases criminality. Now we endure ever-present criminality, deviancy and motor–vehicle madness on our streets and byways.
 
And during this period the decisive role of the police in the criminal justice system has been neutralized by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and by the fact that they are always short-staffed. Yet they must continue to risk life and limb dealing directly with that small percentage of Canadians who are occasional or full-time criminals.
 
If we accept that a significant police presence does prevent crime, and that there must be police on duty 24 hours each day, then it becomes a question of how many officers will be required in any given municipality to maintain a constant presence. It is essential to have more than a minimum number because, in military terms, being short even one officer will ultimately jeopardize their mission.
 
Proof of the importance of police in preventing crime was firmly established by the success of the first professional civilian police force established in London in 1829.
 
I have gleaned a few historical tidbits from Sir Carleton Kemp Allen’s 1953 Hamlyn-Trust lecture The Queen’s Peace.
 
In 1828, Sir Robert Peel told the House of Commons that the proportion of active criminals among Londoners was one in twenty-two; and that lawbreaking throughout England was unprecedented and had not been reduced by a century of excessive use of hanging, transportation or branding. Though Peel was aware of almost unanimous public aversion to a professional civilian police force in metropolitan London, he pressed on saying “that liberty does not consist in having your house robbed by organised gangs of thieves, and in leaving the principal streets of London in the nightly possession of drunken women and vagabonds.”
 
In 1829, Peel sent a force of 3,000 unarmed constables onto the streets of London, constrained by two keystone principles: of first importance, to prevent crime, and second, to be friends of the public. After many years of ups and downs the Peelers brought an end to rampant crime and earned the respect and friendship of Londoners. By the end of the century, crime had reached its lowest point ever and the Queen’s peace was firmly established.
 
However, in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War crime was again on the rise in Britain, prompting Allen to say “that the increase of serious crime within a generation is enormous, and that its quantity is not the only cause for disquiet but also its quality in savagery, ruthlessness and ingenuity of organisation.” In Allen’s opinion it was an insufficiency of police confronting an increase in criminality that had reduced the effectiveness of the Queen’s peace.
 
There is eeriness in Allen’s description of a rise in crime in post-war Britain because it accurately describes the current crime-wave in metropolitan Vancouver. In my opinion British Columbia needs a statesman with the courage and tenacity of Sir Robert Peel to re-invent policing in British Columbia and quell rampant crime. Will it be Solicitor General Kash Heed?
NetBistro

Comments

Comment Posted by: Eagleone on October 4 2009 6:49 AM
I think far more important than more police is the fact our judiciary is broken with prosecutors that allow police to substitute story teller bargening for real trials and investigative work. Trading stories to catch the 'next guy' rather than real actual justice for known crimes already committed.

Haneious crimes are comitted all the time that are bargined away for expediency of the courts and the people administering the justice from the Judges down to the police themselves. This is administrative incompetance that should not be rewarded by more police, but rather less incompetant lawyers and judges.

I propose we fire 10% of the judges every year without compensation and 25% of the prosecutors based on the ones with the most plea bargins on record.

Enact my proposal and crime will be cut in half over night (the savings can go towards real justice in the courts), because the criminals will know there is a new sharif in town and their stories won't work anymore... they all know its a joke now and all have ready made stories to tell an ill equiped judicial process bent on process expediencies.

Comment Posted by: rattlesnake on October 4 2009 10:27 AM
I see your point Eagleone but I feel police presence comes first. Lets nip it in the butt before crimes happen.
Comment Posted by: ammonra on October 4 2009 11:42 AM
The quote was "In 1828, Sir Robert Peel told the House of Commons that the proportion of active criminals among Londoners was one in twenty-two; and that lawbreaking throughout England was unprecedented and had not been reduced by a century of excessive use of HANGING, TRANSPORTATION or BRANDING."

Note the words capitalised (by me). Hanging and transportation (to Australia usually) had no effect on the crime rate, nor the number of criminals. How then, can we expect that prison sentences will accomplish what killing criminald does not?

I was raised in London just after the war and I do not remember it being as he described. There was an undercurrent of dishonesty, mainly due to continued rationing, but nobody feared for their life, and the quote exaggerates how it was, as politicians and political commentators often do.

While there are obviously hot spots in Canada which need attention, keep in mind that the crime statistics show that criminality is decreasing and we are safer, not more at risk. Catastrophising the situation accomplishes nothing except another exxagerated comment in a news article.
Comment Posted by: supertech on October 4 2009 9:20 PM
Also keep in mind that 'gun control' has increased crimes in those countries. To leave that out is no more than 'spin doctoring'. When people have no means to protect themselves, the crime rates increase. Who'd a thunk it??
Comment Posted by: Dirtyrottenresearcher on October 5 2009 12:34 AM
Here are Peel's Principles; I would suggest that Peel doesn't advocate a police state, but rather a police function integrated with the public. That is, the police are the public and the public are the police.

At the time of Peel's peelers, the public were able to be armed and thus could effect arrests of hooligans and thugs in co-operation with the police.


Sir Robert Peel's Nine Principles

• The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
• The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions.
• Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
• The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
• Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
• Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient.
• Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
• Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
• The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
Comment Posted by: gus on October 5 2009 4:27 AM
"When people have no means to protect themselves, the crime rates increase"

This does not correlate with the experience in the USA. How do you explain that?

When you finish that, then go through the European countries one by one and see how you explain the lack of a correlation there.
Comment Posted by: caranmacil on October 6 2009 1:48 PM
I dont actually agree that going through european records reveals a tight correlation between gun control (that is what we are talking about) and violent crime. It isnt valid to compare crime stats across different social and economic structures anyway.
I think if you include england in your analysis you will find a big outlier there. Also, crime stats are one of the hardest to gain insights from as there is no consistancy in reporting, crimes included and so on.