Free to kill
So let's get this straight.
At God knows what expense, Jamie Bulger's killer was given a new identity and freed into society after just seven years simply because our costly forces of law and order decided he was a reformed character and no longer a danger to us. Only it turns out he wasn't.
Ashleigh Hall's killer was a highly dangerous rapist with a long string of convictions for violent sex offences, who was freed to wander among us simply because our costly forces of law and order decided that putting him on the Sex Offenders Register would be enough to keep us safe. Only it turns out it wasn't.
For many years, our Prog Con "justice" establishment have been assuring us that the "blue rinse brigade" like Tyler are wrong and that violent crime has been falling. Only it turns out it hasn't.
This morning we learn that violent crime has been going through the roof. New research from the independent House of Commons Library (but not yet online for mere taxpayers to see) shows that violence against the person increased from 618,417 in 1998 to 887,942 last year - a massive 44% rise.
As BOM readers will know (eg see this blog) there are two ways of measuring the overall incidence of crime. The government's preferred measure is the British Crime Survey (BCS), and that records an apparent 40% fall in crime over the same period. But the BCS is no more than an elaborate opinion poll, and suffers from all the usual infelicities (and spin) of polling. Most of us would prefer to rely on the actual police recorded crime stats, which is what this new research uses.
Unfortunately, the police stats have been subject to two changes in recording and compilation methodology since Labour came to power. That has been very convenient for the Prog Con lobby (such as the BBC's Rev Easton), because it has allowed them to focus their coverage on the opinion poll, and deride bigots like Tyler for ignoring "the facts".
The significance of this new research is that it has been able to adjust the police stats for the most recent of the methodological changes, and give us a consistent comparison over the whole period from 1998. (Note too that the adjustment is taken from figures supplied by the Home Office - it hasn't simply been plucked from the air).
So, a convicted killer was released among us despite still being a danger. A convicted serial rapist was released to kill another innocent victim. Violent crime is rising all around us. And our so-called "Justice" Secretary justifies his own silence on a matter of grave public concern on the basis that anything else "would not be in the public interest".
Well, mate, excuse me, but we are the friggin' public, and we feel quite grown up enough to decide for ourselves what's in our interest.
The truth is that our criminal justice industry treats the public with contempt. We may pay £19bn pa for the police, £7bn pa for the courts and their lawyers, and £5bn pa for our prisons, but those that run them think they are perfectly free to pursue their own agendas. Instead of running things as we'd like, they spend hundreds of millions - of our friggin' money - trying to snow us with propaganda that crime is mainly inside our own heads. Underneath those blue rinses.
But there is a terrible consequence brewing up. When people lose confidence in the official justice system, they start looking to alternatives. Vigilante justice for Jamie Bulger's killers would be just the start.
PS Yes, I realise the Prog Con are suggesting that Ashleigh Hall would still be alive if the police had done their job properly. If they'd not allowed registered sex offender Chapman (picture) to "slip off their radar", then all would have been well. But in reality, the police are not capable of keeping track of these people. Someone determined to slip the net can do so. Which is why we should pursue a failsafe policy of keeping people like Chapman locked away. Most of us care far more about keeping the public safe, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system, than we do about the vague theological possibility of personal redemption.