Justice: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 09:14, 30 May 2024

(Return to the manifesto)

We believe current sentencing policy, which seeks to balance multiple contradictory objectives, has failed to reduce crime or protect public safety.

We will redirect sentencing policy toward a single outcome, the provable rehabilitation of criminals. We will invest in the development and deployment of AI-assisted therapy and evaluation programs, which have the potential to provide more effective, efficient, and individualized interventions than traditional methods.

Hobbes wrote that "the aim of punishment is not a revenge, but terror". We regard that as a simple statement of truth. Courts should be directed to sentence solely with the intent of rehabilitation and with no intention to punish, or to deter, or to make restitution, or to avenge. That may or may not increase the sentence but it would pass sentence on an justifiable and ethical basis for the good of society.

Consider a convict who undergoes a course of rehabilitation which has a proven track record of reducing reoffending to less, but at worst the same, rate as the population at large. On what moral basis is the convict to be kept from liberty thereafter?

The prospect of continuing retribution currently reduces the prospect of rehabilitation. The driving force of rehabilitation, and its effectiveness, relies on a recognition by the convict that he is unwell and that he can become healthy.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 (Return to the [[manifesto]])
-#The Common People will immediately order a fast-track task force to expose and accept government liability, and expedite compensation payments within the 5-year lifetime of the parliament, in the following cases:
-##'''Post-Office Horizon scandal''' ''- While some settlements have been paid, over 550 additional appeals remain unresolved and the present government maintains there are no grounds for further liability payouts.''
-##'''Undercover policing''' ''- Claims from additional women yet to reach settlement or conclusion. The government admits ethical issues but is resisting legal liability.''
-##'''Windrush scandal''' ''- Despite apologies and some compensation, the government has not admitted formal legal liability for hardships faced by Windrush immigrants.''
+We believe current sentencing policy, which seeks to balance multiple contradictory objectives, has failed to reduce crime or protect public safety.
-##'''Historical institutional abuse''' ''- Allegations around widespread abuse in children's homes in Northern Ireland. The government has not accepted liability and disputes around compensation remain.''
-##'''Covid-19 healthcare worker deaths''' ''- No liability accepted over claims that lack of PPE led to the deaths of frontline staff. Families pursuing legal action.''
+We will redirect sentencing policy toward a single outcome, the provable rehabilitation of criminals. We will invest in the development and deployment of AI-assisted therapy and evaluation programs, which have the potential to provide more effective, efficient, and individualized interventions than traditional methods.
-#Sustained denial of legal liability in the face of public calls for proper compensation is difficult to justify persuasively on any grounds - financial, legal or political. While reasons of cost, precedent and bureaucratic reluctance may have led to departmental stonewalling and subsequent delay, these concerns appear insignificant compared to basic requirements of justice, honour and democratic accountability. Political leaders denying liabilities may be excessively motivated by knee-jerk institutional denial and short-term thinking, losing sight of the bigger moral picture and public duty is an unacceptable position which time and again fails the public good.
-#In all of the listed areas, accepting legal liability acknowledges deeper institutional failings beyond one-off incidents. This is the essential first step toward righting these clear wrongs.
+Hobbes wrote that "the aim of punishment is not a revenge, but terror". We regard that as a simple statement of truth. Courts should be directed to sentence solely with the intent of rehabilitation and with no intention to punish, or to deter, or to make restitution, or to avenge. That may or may not increase the sentence but it would pass sentence on an justifiable and ethical basis for the good of society.
-#An explicit manifesto commitment gives a strong democratic mandate for action that is harder for civil servants to ignore or obstruct.
-#Generating public expectations for swift redress makes it politically harder for ministers to accept delays.
+Consider a convict who undergoes a course of rehabilitation which has a proven track record of reducing reoffending to less, but at worst the same, rate as the population at large. On what moral basis is the convict to be kept from liberty thereafter?
-#A manifesto pledge makes it easier to justify urgent parliamentary time for any legislation needed to enable restitution.
-#A manifesto commitment strengthens the case for upfront budget allocation to compensation funds as a priority.
+The prospect of continuing retribution currently reduces the prospect of rehabilitation. The driving force of rehabilitation, and its effectiveness, relies on a recognition by the convict that he is unwell and that he can become healthy.
-#Manifesto pledges increase media awareness and scrutiny, adding pressure for follow-through.
-#Publicly stated time frames allow clearer monitoring of whether responsible ministers meet targets.